Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Petition

West Midlands Regional Health Authority (Rugby)

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition which has been signed by almost 10,000 of my constituents. It gives complete support to and entirely endorses the West Midlands regional health authority in its decision to make Rugby a separate new district health authority. My constituents believe that, although Rugby would be a small authority, it would be viable and would have a clear identity. It does not wish to be part of a larger authority and a more impersonal grouping. We hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will take note of these representations.
The petitioners pray that your honourable House, in considering any proposals for reorganising the administration of the National Health Service, will take steps to ensure that Rugby becomes a district health authority in its own right.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (AMENDMENT)

Mr. James Molyneaux, supported by Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Robert J. Bradford, Mr. William Ross and Mr. Harold McCusker, presented a Bill to amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 to provide for the disqualification of those convicted on indictment of arrestable offences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 May and to be printed [Bill 131.]

Orders of the Day — Indecent Displays (Control) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committtee), considered.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we proceed to amendment No. 1, perhaps I may raise a point about the grouping of amendments, with particular reference to the penultimate grouping of Government amendments Nos. 6 and 8. I apologise for having noticed this only late last night and having therefore been unable to give you advance warning.
Government amendment No. 6 is really no more than a formality to provide that the provisions of clause 4 apply to England and Wales. Government amendment No. 8, however, is more substantial. It seeks to insert into the Bill corresponding penalties for Scotland. The present grouping would mean that the debate on penalties for Scotland would take place with the formal amendment contained in Government amendment No.6. As a matter of order in the Bill, the main debate on penalties falls between the two, consisting of the last group of amendments which contains a number of proposals for amending the penalties.
It would be unsaisfactory to have what would probably be a half-cock debate on the Scottish part, which comes later, grouped with Government amendment No. 6, which is a formality, prior to the main debate on the last group of amendments. There are two ways in which this could be remedied. One is to separate amendments No. 6 and 8. The other, which I support—and I am the first signatory to amendment No. 12, which is the first of the many amendments in the later group—would be to group all o f the amendments relating to penalty provisions together, so that we may deal with all of them in one debate. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) Subject to anything that he may wish to say, I understand that he would support that proposal.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) has said, we briefly discussed this matter and I believe that he has a good and valid point Acceptance of the suggestion to group Government amendments Nos. 6 and 8 with amendments Nos. 12, 13, 7, 17 and 19 would facilitate our debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am always open to reasonable argument. If that is the will of the House, I shall readjust the selection of amendments so that Governrnent amendment No. 6 and amendment No. 12—with all those bracketed with amendment No. 12—and Government amendment No. 8 may be taken together in order to allow a broad debate on the subject of penalties.

Clause 1

INDECENT DISPLAYS

Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1 line 17, leave out from `display' to end of line 20.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 9 in page 1, line 18, leave out from second 'shop' to end of line 20.
No. 11, in page 2, line 35, leave out subsection (6).

Sir Bernard Braine: I should like to make it clear at the outset that I am not opposed to the Bill. I hope that it will make progress. As there are several amendments to consider, I shall make only a brief speech.
The Bill deals only with the public display of pornography; it does not deal with the increasing volume or nature of such material. In other words, it deals with the display of the cover rather than with the material's contents. That is not the fault of the Bill's sponsors. I am sorry to say that the failure to deal with the larger question of pornography lies at the door of successive Governments. It is a public scandal that they have not yet grasped the nettle of our outmoded and largely ineffective obscenity laws. As a result, we are forced to consider even this modest measure against a background of legal uncertainty and confusion. All hon. Members would agree with that.
9.45 am
If there is uncertainty, however, I believe that the public have a healthy instinct about the public display of indecent material which is what the Bill is all about. They may or may not be revolted themselves by the public display of material that links sex with violence, degrades women and debases love, but they know well enough whether what they see is obscene and offensive. But they have natural anxiety, and the House should take full account of it, about the exposure of young children—even teenagers—to such material. All hon. Members will have received representations on that subject.
We are concerned, therefore, not only with such material displayed in public places but with the manner in which it is displayed, without regard for our constituents' susceptibilities and feelings or for their concern for the young. So the question is not whether the Bill is necessary, but whether it will, as drafted, ensure effective control in this respect. I submit that, in one crucially important respect, the Bill does not provide effective control. Indeed, it may well have the opposite effect to that intended.
Clause 1(3)(b) provides an exemption for indecent material that is displayed behind a warning notice beyond which young people under the age of 18 may not proceed. Thus the concept of a private corner in a shop from which young people and children are excluded is to be introduced into the law. On Second Reading this particular matter was hardly discussed. I concede that it is not a new subject. It has received attention during the discussion of earlier Bills. In Committee it was considered only when an amendment was moved that was accepted without question or debate.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is not in the Chamber. With the exception of his senseless remarks on Second Reading this provision seems to have slipped through in what amounts perhaps to a fit of absentmindedness. Yet it needs only a moment's reflection to realise the absurdity, wrongheadedness and immorality of a provision of this kind. It is a licence to the pornographer to display material in a corner of his shop,

not necessarily screened off. There is nothing in the Bill about that. It is a licence for him to display material with covers of the filthiest and most corrupting nature.
It is almost unbelievable that Parliament should say that it is lawful to display such material behind only a warning notice that prohibits the entrance of young people to the area although they may already be on the premises. That is a gift, if ever there was one, to the merchants of pornography, since more offensive material than exists at present will be put freely into circulation. If pornographers had a trade association—perhaps they have one—it would surely wish to see such a provision on the statute book. If there is to be a law that limits their lucrative and offensive activities, they would like it to be one that heightened curiosity, encouraged the prurient and confused the public.
That is why I have tabled the amendment. The Bill is limited to the control of the public display of indecent matter. Yet we are being asked to approve an exemption which may well encourage the sale of even more offensive material. Is that what our constituents have been led to expect from this long-awaited Bill? I doubt it very much.
The situation is worse than that. Even if there were a case for the type of exemption provided for in clause 1, any police officer would testify that it would be unenforceable. The warning notice will be virtually useless. How is the shopkeeper to prevent a 17-year-old in the public part of the shop from straying or deliberately going into the area behind the warning notice? Does the shopkeeper have to judge the young person's age? What is he to do if a 16-year-old goes into the prohibited area and states on being questioned that he is 18? If the shopkeeper does not see the youngster crossing the threshold, is he to rush in to the area when he discovers what has happened and demand the production of a birth certificate? One has only to ask such questions to realise the sheer absurdity of what Parliament is being asked to do.
I have great respect for the Minister. On Second Reading he frankly acknowledged that there were legitimate doubts. He said:
We shall have to wait to see what impact the Bill has on prosecution policy once it is enacted".—[Official Report,30 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 1189.]
What an extraordinary statement for a Home Office Minister to make. He has said that we cannot be sure that the Bill will work so we shall have to wait to see what our prosecution policy will be. Arbitrary decisions will have to be made by the prosecuting authorities—there is already too much of that in other areas—on whether it is right and proper to prosecute.
I understand that when these doubts were expressed to Home Office Ministers behind the scenes their answer was that there would have to be evidence of the shopkeeper's persistent failure to keep young people out of the prohibited area before a prosecution could be brought. A single failure would not be enough. How could such persistent failure be established unless a police officer was permanently stationed in the shop?
May I ask what consultation there has been with the police about the practicality of enforcing the ban? I am not talking about the porn squad in London. This is a problem which affects every police force in the country. It affects urban communities everywhere. Even in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), there is a proliferation of these shops. It is happening all over the country. Before we enact a law which gives


greater encouragement to pornographers by telling them that provided they put up a warning screen the market is open to them, I want to know what consultation there has been with senior police officers and chiefs of police throughout the country.
For many years—the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) will recall our exchanges during the period of the Labour Government—I have represented in the House senior police officers. I am the parliamentary adviser to the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales. I have asked the association whether it shares my views, and I am told that it does. I want to know, therefore, what consultation there has been with the police, who will have the task of enforcing this extraordinary provision. Parliament will be brought into contempt if we enact a law which may lead to still greater mischief and which is impracticable anyway.
With her characteristic forthrightness, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said recently, in an entirely different context, that "a crime is a crime is a crime". So it is. We live in an increasingly permissive society where standards are visibly crumbling and crime is becoming increasingly vicious. Yet we are being asked to add to the confusion by enacting an unenforceable law.
I hope that hon. Members will make a stand. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hove will say that he is seized of the point, that there must be proper protection for young people and that his sponsors in the other place will direct their attention to the problem, that will influence me and my hon. Friends. As this is a Private Member's Bill, I hope that he will give us that assurance. However, it would be an even more important influence on us if the Minister of State were to say that the Government, too, realise the importance of the argument, that since this is purely an interim measure they have every intention of grasping the nettle of the larger question, and that legislation will be brought forward during the lifetime of this Parliament to reform the obscenity laws. I should then be prepared not to press the amendment.
This may be a small Bill, but it deals with a vital principle, and it affects the credibility of the House. I shall therefore listen with great care to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove and the Minister of State.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) expressed his views with his usual great force and in a most impressive way. As I tabled one of the amendments in this group designed to remove the provision from the Bill, it is not surprising that I find myself in agreement with much of what he said. I, too, regard the warning provision as unenforceable nonsense. If it is retained in the Bill, the purpose of which the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) knows that I generally support, it will make a laughing stock of Parliament and the law. I do not know whether plain clothes policemen will stand around in local corner shops to see whether arrases have been erected behind which those who wish to look at indecent material may do so, or whether we shall have a new corps of indecency inspectors to perform that function.
None the less, it is absurd that a provision of this nature should find its way into legislation, not only for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East but for other reasons, for example, that the provision is an absolute one. That means that every word of the warning

notice, precisely as it stands in the Bill, with no corrections—I do not know whether even a mispelling of "material" would make a difference—has to be there if the warning is to be effective. The shopkeeper is not even to be allowed to give a warning in a form which conveys the intention as effectively as—or even more effectively than—the warning in the Bill. The words of the warning must be exactly as printed in the Bill. The word "warning" and, it seems, no other, must appear in the heading. To legislate in that extraordinarily restrictive way makes a laughing stock of Parliament.
Those are merely additional arguments to the forceful ones deployed by the hon. Gentleman to the effect that this provision will undoubtedly be unenforceable. One has only to consider the kind of shop, to which I drew attention time and again in Committee, selling material that is on the borderline between what is permissible and what is impermissible, to realise the difficulties that are involved.
In one of the small villages where I now do some of my shopping there is a small corner shop. It is a post office that sells newspapers, magazines, chocolates and cigarettes, razor blades and many other things. It is not a Sainsbury's superstore, or a shop of that kind. It is a small shop packed with materials to save people having to travel four or five miles in their car to the nearest town—and after last night's vote that is more important than ever. The idea of finding a little corner of that shop in which to erect a barrier or an arras or curtain with a warning notice is a palpable absurdity. It simply will not be done. Here, unfortunately, I part from the hon. Gentleman's amendment, because the result is that that shop will not risk selling material about which there is any doubt.
I am not talking about material that is indecent or perhaps material which has an indecent cover but the contents of which are innocent. Where there is any doubt at all, such a shop will not take the risk. The shop will not put up curtains and warning notices. It will cancel its orders. As a result, people will visit the nearest sex shop if they want to buy Playboy or, for all I know, The Sun. I am not sure whether what appears on page 3 of The Sun falls within the definition of "indecent". The result will be a form of disguised censorship. I do not think that that is the intention of the Bill. These borderline magazines will be driven into the sex shops. Therefore, the Bill will encourage sex shops. Again, I am sure that is not the purpose of the Bill. I hope that the promoter of the Bill will see the force of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and myself and will agree that these parts of the Bill should be removed.
10 am
It was noteworthy that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East dwelt on the defects of the Bill without going into the effect of and the reasons for his amendment. The effect of his amendment would be to extend the ambit of the Bill far beyond its present scope. It would push out the frontiers of restrictiveness in a way not contemplated by the promoter of the Bill. It would be unconstitutional to extend the Bill—which received an unopposed Second Reading on the basis that it proposed a limited approach to the problem—beyond that limited purpose.
The effect of the hon. Gentleman's amendment would be to remove the exclusion from the Bill. Those who supported the Bill on Second Reading—as I said, without a Division on the principle—had no idea that that might ultimately come out. I suggest that it would be wrong to


do that, not only from a constitutional viewpoint but from the point of view of pushing out the frontiers of restrictiveness, particularly in a House as thinly attended as it is this morning. It would also be wrong to do that before full consideration of the Williams report, now of respectable vintage, in which all these matters are thoroughly discussed.
The fact that that was not done before cannot be laid at the door of the Labour Government. I do not want to make party points about this matter. I regret that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East sought to do that. The House is responsible for having failed to debate an important report on this subject. It has failed to clarify its ideas about this difficult subject, which one can generally call pornography but which includes indecency, obscenity and many other terms meaning somewhat different things on which the law acts in different ways in different contexts. Indeed, juries act in different ways in different parts of the country when dealing with the same subject matter. We have failed to introduce a common approach to the subject. Yet the hon. Member has sought to anticipate such a decision by a considerable extension of the purpose of the Bill. I hope that his amendment will not be accepted.
My amendments have a more limited purpose. I speak from a wholly different viewpoint from the hon. Member for Essex, South-East in my general approach to the subject. I should have preferred the removal of the restrictions which will operate on shops. I take the view that I expressed in Committee that there is a strong argument for removing the unpleasantness that assails the passerby in Soho and other such places. He cannot avoid it. But it is a very different matter to go into a shop for a specific purpose. That is a separate point which need not have been dealt with in the Bill in advance of any decision on the Williams report. I have put forward that view on many occasions in Committee, as the hon. Member for Hove knows, but I have not pursued it here.
My amendment would still keep
a shop or any part of a shop
within the ambit of the Bill.
Despite my strong reservations, which I hope will be noted when the Bill is debated elsewhere, the Bill will still contain the provisions at the top of page 2 governing youung people under 18 years of age. My amendment would do no more than deal with the defect so forcefully brought to our attention by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, by removing from the Bill the necessity for a warning notice in the specific form provided and the other provisions relating to curtaining off, gaining access and so on. Otherwise, the principle of the Bill would remain precisely as it is. There would be provisions that indecent displays should be permitted only in
a shop or any part of a shop
provided that those under 18 years of age were not permitted access to the displays by going into the shop without warning paraphernalia—curtaining off, warning notices and so on.
It is surely sufficient, even for the promoter's purpose—and I do not challenge his purpose, although he knows that I do not approve of the provisions—if there is a simple restriction in the form provided for in the first three lines of page 2—that is, a person displaying indecent material must ensure that those under the age of 18 are not

there to see it; putting it the other way round, a person must ensure that he does not display indecent material if there is a likelihood that those under 18 will come into the shop in order to see it. What more does one require? We do not need all the paraphernalia about curtaining off and warning notices.
We must never forget that whatever different views there may be about the law on obscenity—and I believe that it is a jungle, and we set up the Williams committee to get enlightenment about it—it remains in force. Obscene publications, whether sold in corner shops, W. H. Smith or elsewhere, are subject to that law. They can be seized. Those who publish and distribute them can be prosecuted. The Bill is dealing with a narrow area that lies between obscenity and indecency. Heaven alone knows what that covers, but it is a very narrow area indeed. It goes further. We are dealing here not with indecency in magazines or books but only with the indecency that appears on the outside of them. As a result of the debates in Committee, the promoter has amended the Bill so that, provided that the indecent material is not on display in the sense of being there to be seen either on the outside of the magazine or because the magazine is left open by the shopkeeper at the point where the indecent material is to be seen, the Bill does not bite upon it.
Is it really worth while making a laughing stock of ourselves and Parliament in order to cover that narrow area by having the provisions relating to warning notices and so on? Is it not all covered perfectly adequately by the provisions at the top of page 2, even within the full context of what the hon. Member for Hove intends—and going much further than I would like to see? As I have said, it will put the shopkeeper at risk and on warning if he is displaying the kind of material that the Bill is concerned with.
Although I cannot support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, I support 90 per cent. of what he says. I hope that he will support in his turn—because they go a long way to meet the points that he makes—the amendments that I have tabled, which in due course I hope to have the opportunity of formally moving if the promoter of the Bill does not respond in the way that he has suggested.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on his skill and good fortune in having steered this worthwhile Bill so far on its passage through the House. It is an honest and genuine attempt to improve an untidy and difficult situation, although, with respect, it does not go far enough.
In amendment No. 9, the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) seeks to reduce the already limited safeguards in the Bill. If it is accepted, the Bill will become a charade and a shambles. He described the legislation as a jungle, but his amendment will make the situation worse. It is a cynical exercise. In the context of the debate it could be described not so much as a probing amendment as a castrating one. The Bill requires the display of a warning notice, but, as suggested in the amendment, it will be totally inadequate. It will be difficult to enforce. Perhaps all that can be said in favour of the amendment is that its intention is good.
Amendment No. 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has at least


one virtue: it is simple. It does not seek to damage the fabric of the Bill and it does not distort. It seeks to strengthen the good points in this worthwhile Bill. It will separate with absolute finality hard and soft pornography.
At present young people may enter premises to look at or to buy girlie magazines and be gently drawn towards the hard stuff. Between the two will exist only a notice saying not "Keep off the Grass" but "Keep off the porn". It will not be so much "Beware of the bull" as "Beware of the body."
Does the House believe that such a measure would have any effect? It will be totally ineffective. It will bring our legislation into disrepute. The notice will be as much use as those that exist on the side of cigarette packets. It will be there for almost the same reason, which has far more to do with cosmetics than the protection of our young people. If exhibited as outlined in the Bill, the notice will add a touch of challenge. It will be almost a come-on to young people to see the hard stuff. It will be a positive invitation to see something that is being concealed.
It will be difficult to identify 18-year-olds—and one has only to ask a licensee how difficult it is to enforce the age limit to understand the impossibility of such an operation. The distinction between 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds is negligible.
The solution lies in amendment No. 1. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove will accept it. It will strengthen a worthwhile and important Bill. The essence of Private Members' Bills is time, so I shall now sit down. The point could be argued at much greater length, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the amendment and that we shall see the Bill on the statute book.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I am attracted by the statements made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), who moved the amendment, but I am also much aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the amendment, in one sense, would be contrary to the general practice of the House and might even amount to an unconstitutional approach to the matter. I am attracted by the amendment, but I am taking full account of the remarks of those who do not fully share the enthusiasm displayed by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East.
I feel a little apprehensive about the difficulties that might ensue as a consequence of a notice stating that on one side of the notice there are certain protections but on the other side no protection, with the dividing line being that the person is over 18 years of age. I am concerned not only about public display. Some material I have seen goes much further than girlie magazines and tends to corrupt. Some of the letter columns in these girlie magazines are highly offensive and highly corrupt. These magazines are just as offensive if a person can read what is contained inside them before making a purchase.
I am aware of the many complexities and difficuties of approach in seeking the protection that many hon. Members desire. I am also aware of the dividing line between censorship and what the community may wish to do for itself and the protection that should be provided for those who are offended or who may be corrupted by the cover and contents of the material if the contents are on public display.
There was some dilemma among hon. Members in Committee in trying to decide how to create the protection.

I am aware that we are creating a fundamental principle that has not been adequately discussed. Hon. Members were seeking to give some degree of protection against the public display and against the offensiveness caused to many people and perhaps the corruption of those under a certain age who were unable to overcome the temptations that might be presented by pictures or words. We had to decide how far to go.
I take into account and share some of the concern expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich. I also take into account remarks made in support of the amendment. I believe that we should look at the matter again. It would be within the propriety of the practices of the House if the matter was reopened in another place with adequate notice given beforehand. This would appear to meet all the suggestions made in relation to amendment No. 1. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend and the sponsor of the Bill would agree to my proposal.
I have grave doubts about whether the House, by accepting my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment, would achieve what it seeks to achieve. I understand the compelling reasons that prompted my right hon. and learned Friend to put the amendment before the House. I can see, in his approach, the legal mind trying to achieve some clarity and trying to remove doubts about the provisions of the Bill relating to shops. My right hon. and learned Friend has told the House that he goes into a village shop. What happens if that village shop becomes a purveyor or material that causes offence? There is nothing to stop that from happening. What is my right hon. and learned Friend's answer if young people enter that shop to purchase one type of commodity only to be faced by another type of commodity that can be offensive and corrupting?

Mr. S. C. Silkin: My hon. Friend directly asks me a question. I repeat the answer that I gave. Whatever my personal preference is about the situation he has described, the Bill, even if my amendment was passed, would still contain provisions to prevent the dangers to which my hon. Friend refers. The exclusions in clause 1(3)(b) shall only apply where persons under the age of 18 are not permitted to enter.

Mr. Dunn: My right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me if I do not share completely his interpretation as he presents it. I acknowledge his skill and expertise, but I do not grant him the absolution of being always right. I have my grave doubts. It would be dangerous to adopt the amendment suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that the sponsor will indicate his opposition to it. These matters were examined in detail in Committee. I do not believe that the House should return to them at this late stage to insert the protections that my right hon. and learned Friend now seeks.
There are anxieties, rightfully expressed, about the protections offered by the Bill. I can understand that many people would like to see more than is contained in the measure. I may share some of that desire. However, politics is sometimes the art of the possible. This is the judgment that should be applied to this Bill. If we lose the Bill today, we may never get it again.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I agree entirely with the last observation of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). There has always been


difficulty in achieving this sort of legislation. This extends back over seven or eight years. There have been a number of occasions on which such a measure has nearly reached the statute book. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) made some progress before an election intervened. The Government tried themselves to introduce a Bill. I also tried six or seven years ago, and there have been other attempts. All the Bills have been drafted on similar lines to the Bill before the House. There have been lengthy consultations with police and all sorts of people going back over many years. Both the Society of Conservative Lawyers and the Labour lawyers have considered the matter.
All agree that Governments of both complexions have funked the issue of dealing with the difficult problems of obscenity and hard pornography. Because the Government have funked, and still funk, the issue, hon. Members have at least to try to take some action. It is recognised that Private Members' Bills have no chance unless they deal with a fairly narrow issue and the path is fairly clear. By pursuing such an approach, my hon. Friend has obtained a Second Reading for the Bill without a dissenting voice. Many matters were discussed in Committee, and the House is now faced by a number of amendments. I hope that the Minister of State will say today that the matter will be taken further.
Since Second Reading, there has been throughout the country a large increase in the number of sex shops. For the first time, there are two in Thanet. Reports of sex shops being set up are coming in from all over the country. There is little doubt that discussion of the Bill has made clear that large sums are being made by the porn merchants of Soho, and that has resulted in people opening sex shops in other parts of the country.
That must be dealt with and that task is primarily one for the Secretary of State for the Environment. We must immediately bring sex shops within the town and country planning classes of use orders so that local authorities can refuse to give planning permission for sex shops and therefore outlaw them. We could then go on to consider how the laws of obscenity need to be amended. I hope that the Home Office can be persuaded to take action, though it will be difficult to achieve that, because the Home Office will say that there is no agreement in the House or in the country.
10.30 am
The Bill is limited in scope and concerns only indecent display—something that is an affront to the public. It is a public nuisance Bill and nothing else. It is not a pornography Bill. Being a public nuisance Bill, it seeks to deal with two classes of premises—sex shops and bookstalls, including perhaps even village shops.
We need no change beyond what is contained in the Bill in relation to sex shops because they are already implementing the Bill. Sex shops in Victoria and Soho have blacked out their windows and are displaying a warning notice couched almost exactly in the terms contained in the Bill. The sex shops have no objection to that. They want to attract their own particular public and they know that a blacked-out window with the words "sex shop" on the front will do that. It is wrong to suggest that

the Bill will not be effective and could not be enforced. Some provisions are already being complied with and will require no enforcement.
Bookstalls must be cleaned up. We do not want them displaying this filthy muck, and anything that stops them from doing so is welcome. I do not find immensely appealing the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) that we should permit the display of explicit sexual material in village shops so that people can save petrol by not having to drive miles to the sex shop in the nearest town. We do not want to see explicit sexual material being displayed in village shops. If that means the end of girlie magazines with explicit front covers, I am all for excluding them.
In practice, the girlie magazines will take the girlie stuff off the front cover—indeed, they are already doing so—and we will not see repellent lesbian scenes on the covers. They will go inside and the Bill will not prevent the sale of such magazines because it is concerned only with indecent display. If the magazines cannot do that, it would be better that they were not sold.
I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich is correct in saying that we shall be made a laughing stock if we have a warning notice or a provision setting out the precise words to be used on such notices. Setting out the precise words is probably better, because we are dealing with a trade and the porn merchants would prefer to know exactly what a warning notice should say. That is why I support the provision for such notices.
In practice, warning notices will cover the whole shop, but some small shops in small towns sell tobacco and newspapers and may also sell a certain amount of soft porn. They may want to put that material in a back room and a warning notice on the door to that room would offer complete protection. That will not make us a laughing stock. It will be total protection.
I believe that the amendment goes too far at this stage, but we do not need the limitations suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich. I hope that we shall pass the Bill and encourage the Government to take the matter a good deal further along lines that we all approve.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not intend to speak for long, but I should explain why I put my name to amendments Nos. 9 and 11. There is a civil liberties group on the Opposition side which examines Bills that seem to affect civil liberties and the consensus about this Bill is that there is no desire to prevent it from going on to another place, but certain aspects of it worry us. I should also say that certain aspects encourage many members of the group, particularly the female members who feel that pornography is the greatest single inhibition upon a move towards equality between men and women in this country.
I come new to the Bill, but I hope that it will not be felt that I am injecting a new element that has it in mind to hold up the legislation. However, I also hope that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) will listen to criticisms, even at this stage, because the pilot of a Private Member's Bill needs to be flexible right up to the last minute. I acknowledge that on the Opposition side the spadework on the Bill has been done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who are not obvious pornographers' narks.
There seems to be a curious agreement between the three amendments. I am worried about the proposed notice and that is why I put my name to the amendments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich. I wish to address myself to the third class of shop that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) mentioned, namely the middling sort of shop in a city or small town that does quite a trade in tobacco and sweets, has built up a newsagent's trade and has got into the habit of selling quite a lot of soft porn because there is a demand for it.
I want to address myself to the effect of the Bill on the proprietor of a shop who, after all, is in business to make money. One must remember that at present he is finding it difficult to keep his head above water and to make money.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman should pose himself a slightly wider question. The barons of soft and hard porn are watching these proceedings. Within two to three months they can decide to alter the front cover of magazines. One must consider that, too, in connection with the retailer and his problems.

Mr. Price: I hasten to say that I am not an expert in these matters, but I am concerned about the balance, which is strangly different in different shops. As the hon. and learned Member said, we are talking about a trade—wholesalers and publishers make a great deal of money—which all the time is looking for new retail outlets. Discussions have taken place with the porn producers. I do not know whether they have a statutory producers' organisation with someone responsible for them in the Department. I understand that the discussions have demonstrated that they are content with the Bill. Even that makes me a tiny bit worried.
I am worried that the shopkeeper will have to make a decision about whether he should display material with indecent covers. Perhaps he may decide not to and we could all say "Three cheers". He is in the business of making money and a living. If he decides to sell porn and he is selling sweets, which children come in to buy, he will have to build a back room to his shop. That will involve him in capital expenditure to convert the shop and he will have to find someone to lend him the money. It will involve investment on which he will want a return. The danger that I see in this statutory notice business and back rooms with curtains is that it will positively encourage the shopkeeper to build his back room and the money he borrows may come from his trade in porn. Before he knows where he is he will be stocking not just soft porn and a little hard porn but a great deal of soft and hard porn and a range of other goods that it never occurred to him in the past to stock.

Mr. Dan Jones: We are not being asked to legislate for occasions of that kind. Is there not an obligation on the House to give a lead to the country in what I call, without a doubt, a Christian attitude? We should challenge the setting up of such agencies and not help them to be subsidised to encourage the corruption of our young people.

Mr. Price: I am certain that it is the job of the House to give a lead to the country, I am acutely aware that time after time over the past 20 years when the House has

legislated expecting one set of circumstances to be the result of that legislation, a completely different set of circumstances that no one has thought of has resulted.
I am fundamentally a libertarian. I would like everyone to do what he wants to do. I do not want to stop people from doing things.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Even murder?

Mr. Price: No, I do not mean things against the law. If it is not against the law, I want to allow people to do what they like.
When we pass legislation we should think carefully about its effects. There is a confluence of attitudes between the two sides on the issue of the back room. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West is right. We have these notices not only in Soho but in sex shops that are springing up in other places. The danger of statutorily laying down a warning notice in such terms is that one will positively encourage warning notices to be put up all over the place and new effects will occur that encourage small shopkeepers to do things that it had never occurred to them to do in the past.
After the Wolfenden report, some people thought that sweeping prostitution under the carpet would make it less prevalent. We swept it under the carpet, but the broad result was to tend to make the pimps richer and the girls poorer.
I would not wish any legislation passed by the House to make pornographers richer and the small shopkeeper more open to exploitation by them. For that reason, I want to leave the situation more or less as it is. That is why I would dispense with the warning notice and that is why I put my name to my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment. I was not a member of the Committee, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) says "at this late stage", I should remind him that Report is the only occasion when hon. Members who were not members of the Committee have the chance to participate in the debates.
I believe that grown men should be able to do what they like in private as long as it is not against the law. I am against people interfering. But everyone else should be protected against offensive items staring them in the face. The Bill goes a long way to enacting that. However, we must be careful that in some of its knock-on effects we do not wake up to a Britain in two or three years' time in which our tobacconist shops are different places from what they are today.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate the Government's views on the amendments which are in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin).
It is the achievement of my hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), that he has so constructed it as to attract, on what is a notoriously difficult and uncertain subject when it comes to legislation, a wide degree of support in the House. So it was that on Second Reading not only was there no vote against the Bill but no voice raised against it.
I think that without such wide all-party support there is today no chance of progress being made by a Private


Member's Bill—or indeed a Government Bill—on this subject. In this context I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that our experience in the House when trying to legislate on this or related subjects has unhappily often been to find that different consequences have resulted from those that we expected. It is very important that that should be avoided. My hon. Friend has achieved that by the policy of not trying to do too much. It is because the Government want to see progress in giving more protection to the public against the display of pornographic filth, and especially greater protection to children in this regard, that we have so warmly welcomed my hon. Friend's approach to the drafting of the Bill and have tried to help him in every way that we can.
I should like to say, in response to what has been said by more than one of my hon. Friends, I think with the concurrence of the whole House, that the Government recognise the widespread anxiety in the country about the proliferation of sex shops. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, control over the use of premises for retail purposes of any sort lies primarily with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government fully understand the anxiety—and, indeed, in many quarters the anger—arising from the proliferation of sex shops. We have accordingly been giving urgent consideration in the Home Office, in consultation with our friends and colleagues in the Department of the Environment, to ways in which more effective control over the opening of such shops might be introduced.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced his support in principle for the proposal by the Greater London Council to introduce a licensing scheme in Greater London by means of a Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill. My right hon. Friend has been impressed by the representations made to him that a licensing system would provide the only effective means of preventing the swamping of places such as Soho by the uncontrolled spread of such establishments. There would be the additional advantage that with a licensing system, which would no doubt have regard not only to demand but to the opposite of demand, control in an area would be placed in the hands of those elected by the residents of that area to give effect to local wishes, opinions, fears, anxieties and other local considerations.

Mr. John Ryman: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government are considering the introduction of a licensing scheme as a result of representations from the GLC. One can see the argument for that, but is not the great danger that by such a scheme the Government would be giving the stamp of respectability to the shops and encouraging their growth, just as under the betting and gaming legislation of 1960 and 1963 there was an enormous increase in cash betting once the Government had authorised licensed cash betting shops to be set up? A huge new industry grew. Is not the danger that the proposal would have the opposite effect to that which the Government want, by encouraging a growth in sex shops?

Mr. Mayhew: That is a consideration to be borne in mind, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's forecast is likely to be fulfilled.
The House must always bear in mind when considering legislation on this and related subjects that we get into great difficulties when we seek to determine that which is respectable and that which is not, and to legislate against what we regard as not being respectable. That is a trap that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove has so far effectively avoided. He has concerned himself with the environmental aspects of the problem, the public display of indecent material, and has been concerned to protect members of the public from having indecent material thrust before them without warning when going about their ordinary business. I believe that that is much the most practical approach at this stage, when there does not exist on the broader issues the degree of agreement that is necessary for the success of any legislation with a much broader scope.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware that there are those who wish to see a licensing system introduced on a wider scale. He does not dismiss that idea, but he believes that at this stage it would be sensible to assess the effectiveness of the GLC's proposals before contemplating the introduction of legislation on a national scale. However, he will pay the closest attention to what is said in the debate.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: As my hon. and learned Friend and I have discussed this matter before, I have been listening to him with great care. May I impress upon him that while Governments will want to consider, assess and evaluate, and do all the other things that Governments want to do, the large majority of the people of this country want action, not only to affect places such as Soho but to protect corner shops from being turned into sex shops, with the unhappy results of such changes? I was slightly concerned about my hon. and learned Friend's comment, because it opens the way to considerable delay, delay which would not be appreciated by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, not to mention the people of this country.

Mr. Hayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know the anxiety that has arisen in his constituency over the appearance of sex shops there. I think that he will draw comfort from the fact that I have just been able to say that we have been consulting colleagues in the Department of the Environment. He also knows the difficulties that the existing planning law imposes. I am glad that my hon. Friend is present, and that he will perhaps take part in the debate later, because he is one of those who have taken it upon themselves in the past to try to amend the law relating to this aspect of pornography. I take comfort from the fact that his Bill provided for virtually the same warning notice and provision. I believe that that was a proper provision. It is a great pity that unfortunately his Bill did not survive.
Whilst I share to the full the strong feelings of distaste for pornography and for those who peddle it that were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, and that underlay his speech, I cannot advise the House to support his amendment or the amendments of the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich. My fear is that in supporting them we should be providing poor protection to the public against having pornographic, indecent material thrust before them without warning, and that there would be a greater risk that children would be


drawn into sex shops than if the Bill were passed in its present form. Moreover, I do not think that, with the amendments, we should see the Bill on the statute Book.
The method that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove has adopted is to steer away from the enforcement of a code of morality and to address the Bill to the protection of the public against having indecent displays forced on their attention as they go about their everyday business. I suspect that no one has a stronger belief than has my hon. Friend that the creation, let alone the display or sale anywhere, of a great deal of pornography is morally wrong. Many of us would share that view. But my hon. Friend has been wise to concentrate on the environmental aspect. It is this which has won him such wide support, where a moral crusade would not—however regrettable that may be to many of us—have had an equal chance of success.
11 am
On Second Reading, speech after speech supported this approach. More than one hon. Member referred to "pollution of the environment". Accordingly, the scheme of the Bill is to ban the display of indecent material in a public place, but then to exempt its application in certain places to which the public have access and on certain conditions. Its theme is that if adult members of the public choose to seek out this material, then, subject to the far from negligible provisions of the Obscene Publications Acts, that is up to them. Those Acts may be unsatisfactory, but their provisions, as the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich has reminded us, remain upon the statute book, and they are far from negligible. I would certainly not argue that they are perfect, or anything like it, but they are far from ineffective.

Sir Bernard Braine: So far, my hon. and learned Friend has dodged the issue of enforcement. He has said nothing about the charge that I made—that the Bill is unenforceable, with special reference to the police. Secondly—and I hope that he will remedy this omission—he has said nothing about the Government's intentions, if we pass this interim legislation, to tackle the wider question of the obscenity laws, which he acknowledges are not all that effective, in the lifetime of this Parliament. I hope that he will address himself to that matter, because that will determine the way in which I vote.

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend is, as ever, enthusiastic. But he must not confuse preparing to answer a question with dodging a question. I am looking forward to answering the questions which he has very pertinently put.
The theme of the Bill is that, if adult members of the public choose to seek out this sort of material, that is up to them. The Bill's protection is against their having it thrust before them.
All that the Bill will do is to permit the display of indecent material in premises that are protected by the Bill. The sale of pornographic material will be governed, as it is now, by the obscene publications legislation. I do not think that it can be denied, however strongly one feels about sex shops—and I speak as one who greatly sympathises with the objections made to them—that the provision we are discussing is wholly consistent with the philosophy of the Bill. That which the amendments seek to remove is a provision of the Bill which is wholly consistent with the philosophy that I have tried to spell out.

I think that it can be described as epitomising it, because if the aim is to ensure that people who do not want to see indecent material should not have to do so, while not preventing others from seeing it if they wish, provided that they are over the age of 18, then nothing is likely to achieve that aim more effectively than a clear warning notice of the kind specified in the Bill.
I want to deal with the argument that this will in some way encourage the spread of sex shops. The Government do not believe that that unhappy consequence will in fact come about. Even if the provision were deleted, even if my hon. Friend's amendment were carried, these shopkeepers could, if they wanted to do so, avoid having their shops regarded as public places by the simple expedient of charging a nominal entrance fee and thus bringing themselves within the scope of the exemption in clause 1(3)(a) for displays which those over 18 pay to see.
I ask whether it is not more satisfactory, as a means of protecting the general public from affront, to require a clear warning notice. Again, such premises could resort to putting, for example, brown paper covers over the items actually displayed. There would then be a much greater risk of children frequenting these premises, because those in charge of the shop would be under no obligation to keep the under-18s out. Nor, of course, would they have to display any form of warning notice. Provided that no material was displayed—that is, in such a way as to be open to view—no offence under the Bill could be committed. But customers would, of course, be invited to view material by raising covers, looking inside boxes and so on. Again, I think that it is a question for consideration whether it would not be much more satisfactory, as clause 1(3)(b) now requires, to exclude children entirely, while permitting those adults who choose to do so to pass the warning notice and to view indecent material if they wish to do so.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that the alternative stratagems which he is suggesting that shops might get up to in order to evade the provisions add to the folly of having the provisions. Those very stratagems are in themselves such as to add to the probability that this provision will be regarded as a laughing stock, because people will get up to just that very kind of stratagem.

Mr. Mayhew: The provision which provides protection only in the case of a shop where a warning notice is put up excluding those under 18, and which excludes the display of indecent material save from a position behind that warning notice and where it cannot be seen is a provision that it is important to keep. The Bill would be greatly the weaker if that protection were removed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East suggested that the notice was all that was necessary and that a person could perfectly well be within the exemption provided by the Bill if he had stuff that was indecent in his shop, which, none the less, could be seen by anyone as he went into the shop or seen from the right side—if I may put it thus—of the notice. That is not so. If the material can be seen from the part of the shop outside the notice it is effectively on display within the entire premises and is therefore not exempt.
Clause 1(2) provides that any matter displayed so as to be visible from any public place is publicly displayed,


while a part of a shop set apart behind a warning notice is not a public place. Therefore, if matter therein is visible from outside it, in a part of a shop which is a public place, there is a public display, just as a poster in the window of a private house visible from the street is deemed to be publicly displayed. Therefore, I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point.
The Government do not agree, either, with the view that the requirement that under-18s shall be excluded would be ineffective. Here I come to the enforcement point. In a case where it can be shown that a shopkeeper deliberately and knowingly admitted someone under age, that evidence will suffice to establish that his display on that occasion was a public display and, therefore, in contravention of the law. Therefore, it is not the case, and it has never been contended by the Home Office, for example, to anyone who consulted it, that in every case one would have to show persistent breach of the law, persistent admission of those who were under 18. Circumstances may arise in which a person under 18 has been admitted and the evidence is abundantly clear that that admission was made with what can be called guilty knowledge, deliberately and on purpose, and with full knowledge of the relevant facts.
In other cases where that position cannot be established—and each case will turn on its own facts—any evidence of persistent admission of children under the age of 18 will be relevant to any individual case where a shopkeeper denies that he knew that the person in question was under age. However, in my view the Bill rightly does not make this offence an absolute one—an offence which can be proved without the proof of guilty knowledge.
My hon. Friend asked me what consultation there was with the police. As he knows, this is not a Government Bill, but representations were made to the Home Office by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Neither commented specifically on the enforcement of this provision. However, the Government want to give all the practical help they can to those who wish to see greater control over the proliferation of sex shops, and I have indicated the ways in which we are examining that matter.
I believe that we would be unwise to ignore the fact that each of the Bills introduced previously by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) provided for a warning notice to be required. That was as a result of very long and detailed consideration of the difficulties that arise when seeking to achieve the object which we in this House all share in this regard. Each of those Bills contained such a provision.
At the time of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey, the Government of the day supported him in that provision. The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough provided expressly for keeping out the under-18s. The Home Office working party in 1976 concluded that this approach could be achieved.
To remove this provision from the Bill would be to depart radically from the Bill's philosophy, for the reasons that I have given. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich that there may be difficulties for those who operate bookstalls or village shops, and who do not wish to construct back rooms and so forth, in

determining whether the material which they are showing at present falls within the category dealt with by the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it is no bad thing that, where material is on the borderline, those proposing to sell it should be invited to err on the side of caution. I do not think that that is against the public interest. However, to remove the provision from the Bill would dangerously diminish the protection that the Bill gives. If these amendments were carried, we should be seeking to legislate not against public display but against public availability.
That is an argument for another day and perhaps for another Bill, but I believe firmly that we would gravely damage the effectiveness of this Bill and its chances of reaching the statute book if we carried any of these amendments. Therefore, I hope that none of them will be carried, assuming that they are pressed.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: My first reflection on the Minister's speech is that he failed to answer the specific question asked twice if not three times by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to remedy that now. It seemed to me to be an extremely important question about the Government's intentions in this legislation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will not answer, or does not want to answer, it may be that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) will answer for him. As the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be answering for the hon. Member for Hove on so much of the Bill, perhaps the hon. Member for Hove will answer for the Government and tell us about their intentions.

Mr. Mayhew: I thought that I had made the position clear on Second Reading. What is more, the Government have made it clear subsequently in this House in response to questions. There is no early prospect of legislation on the broad issues covered by the Williams report, for the reason that I gave a few moments ago, that in the Government's view there is insufficient general agreement on the subject to warrant early legislation. If I had not made that clear before, I apologise and make it clear now.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend did not give me a straight answer. I asked him in my speech and in an intervention to give an answer. He has had to be pressed now by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill).

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Who is holding the Floor at the moment? Is it the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), or my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Lady had given way to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine).

Sir Bernard Braine: I did not ask my hon. and learned Friend to assure the House that there would be early legislation. I asked him to say whether the Government intended to grasp the nettle in the lifetime of this Parliament. Is the answer "Yes", or "No"?

Dr. Summerskill: I take it from the Minister's silence that the answer is "No". If he disagrees with that interpretation, he can say so. But it is clear that the


Government are not initiating a debate on the report of the Williams committee, which looked at the subject exhaustively over two years and produced unanimous recommendations. In spite of their not initiating a debate on the report and seeking the views of the House on it, the Government now say that they do not intend to introduce legislation.
I noticed today that the Minister gave a warm welcome to the Bill, whereas on Second Reading he simply said that he felt towards it a friendly or even affectionate neutrality. Apparently his enthusiasm for it grew during the Committee stage, though I cannot think why. The Committee stage, far from clarifying the Bill or making it more easily enforceable, led us into a positive quagmire of perplexity, to use the appropriate phrase of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin).
We want to see a practical and workable Bill and an improvement on all existing legislation. The Bill having come out of Committee, I am disappointed in what remains of it. I hope that, even now, improvements can be made to it in this House and in the other place.
My attitude to these amendments is determined largely by the fact that in Committee the most important and significant word in the Bill—"indecent"—was left unchanged. No definition of that word is now contained in the Bill. We are discussing a Bill concerning indecent display, but none of us knows what an indecent display is. No one is sure. We all have different views. It is in the eye of the beholder. Presumably the police will all have different views, as will the courts.
The Minister did not mention the Williams report. It has been sadly neglected. The Williams committee was set up specifically because of the complexity of this subject, and one of its main recommendations was that the word "indecent" had outlived its usefulness.
As long as the word "indecent" is retained, I cannot see how the provisions of clause 1 will operate any more effectively than the present vague and totally ineffective law on the subject. It is not surprising that the Adult Book Publishers Association—for that is its name—is content with the Bill.
The difficulty or impossibility of defining an indecent display is relevant to the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich. Once we start to include displays inside shops, we are entering the realm of the small corner newsagent, of Smiths in the High Street, of the railway station news-stand and of the town book shop. How are responsible publishers, jacket designers or photographers, or responsible shop owners, to decide whether a magazine cover or book jacket is an indecent display? I asked that question on Second Reading. Attitudes will differ between one individual and another, from court to court, from area to area and from year to year as public opinion change.
What will the people involved do? Responsible artists and publishers could be inhibited, for fear of contravening the law, by the Bill's provisions from producing the magazines or book jackets which they wish to produce. Responsible and experienced shopkeepers could decline to stock a whole range of publications for fear that they would be committing an offence and for fear that they would make an indecent display.
The third extreme and unlikely possibility is that ordinary shopkeepers will go to the trouble and expense, if they have the space, the inclination and the money, of

cordoning off a special indecency section. They must first establish which of their stock is indecent. When they have decided which is and which is not—although they have nothing on which to make that judgment—they can continue to stock and sell anything with impunity.
The first two possibilities smack of disguised censorship. The Bill will extend the borderline of censorship to an extent which is indefensible and dangerous. The measure is piecemeal and fails to be comprehensive. The undesirability of legislating for such special areas was stressed by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East but for different reasons. The hon. Gentleman's argument for a complete ban on all indecent displays, whether in front of the curtain or behind it, involves wholesale censorship which is not the. Bill's purpose.
The alternative offered by the Bill is an unhappy compromise. It imposes a ban on one side of a warning notice but a free-for-all on the other side. That is not a satisfactory way to legislate against indecent displays.
My doubts are not new. They were not brought up for the Report stage. On Second Reading and during the Committee stage we all emphasised the complexities of the problem. As the discussion proceeded the whole Committee realised more and more the difficulties involved in the subject.
What is meant by "open to view"? We had no further clarification from the hon. Member for Hove and yet the warning notice contains the word "display" not "open to view". The difference between "display" and "open to view" is left for hon. Members to interpret. When is an art gallery an art gallery? Art galleries are excluded. What about a shop with indecent displays calling itself the Soho art gallery? We discussed such matters in Committee. Again and again the Minister and the promoter told the Committee "The courts will know what we mean." It was clear that members of the Committee did not know what was meant or at least could not agree about what was meant.
There must be shops in Bond Street which sell reputable, erotic works of art which could be judged to be indecent by many people. Will such works of art have to be put behind a warning notice? We do not know the answer. Shopkeepers do not know the answer, the police do not know the answer any more that the House. There is no established definition of the word "indecent".

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does my hon. Friend recall that if such a work of art were transferred from a shop to a local authority art gallery a notice would not be needed although the same people could see it there as in the shop?

Dr. Summerskill: I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees with me.
I am sorry that we did not discuss the warning notice in detail in Committee, but so many other more complicated issues and matters of principle faced us at every turn that we neglected to discuss warning notices in detail. It is right to return to that subject today.
Attention has been drawn to the more obvious practical defects of a warning notice, to the way in which the police will ensure that the warning is adhered to and to its provocative effect. Warning notices could crop up in small shops. We cannot be sure what will be the character of small shops, newsagents and news-stands in two or three years' time as a result of the Bill.
When the promoter moved an amemdment in Committee setting out the contents of the notice, one of his arguments was that the Williams committee suggested it. He quoted the committee's report which said that there might be an advantage in having the text of such a notice prescribed by legislation. The hon. Gentleman appears to be able to adopt a suggestion by the Williams committee when it suits him. The Minister failed to mention the report and the promoter has adopted one of its less important recommendations. He totally rejected the committee's main recommendations.
The Committee's main recommendation was that a comprehensive new statute on the subject was required, not a little Bill such as this which deals with only a narrow part of the subject. The second main recommendation was that the term "indecent" should be abandoned. Both those main recommendations have been disregarded. In that context only should we introduce warning notices and legislation which can indirectly lead to overt censorship.
We all want an effective and enforceable measure. Far from clarifying the provisions in the Bill, our discussions in Committee often served to illustrate and reveal the complexities inherent in this extremely difficult, long standing and intractable part of the law.
The promoter and the Minister have underestimated the difficulties that will be faced by all those who will deal with the Bill's enforcement. They have tended to show a blind faith in the judgment of the prosecuting authorities and the courts. We were often told in Committee that the courts will understand the meaning of the words in the Bill. We were told that even if hon. Members put different interpretations on the Bill they must not worry because the Bill means what it says. That is the wrong way to legislate. We need sensible, effective and enforceable legislation. For that reason I did not originally attach my name to the amendment. I wanted to give careful consideration to it. Having heard the discussion today I recommend that the House supports the amendment.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I apologise to the House, and especially to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), for having arrived late and therefore missing 30 minutes of the debate. I can be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) anticipated some of what I intended to say. She was more authoritative than I could be.
I join the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) in paying tribute to the promoter of the Bill for having made yet one more attempt to clarify this messy, imprecise, dubious and unclear part of the law. I wish that he had succeeded in his intention because we all share his objectives. As we have been reminded, that was made clear by the fact that the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. We are with him in his objective, but we have all seen cases in which a Bill turns out in practice not to fulfil and sometimes even to negate its own objectives.
I got into trouble myself a year or two ago with a Bill which had very good objectives but which was so badly drafted that it would not have fulfilled them. In that case the matter was put right in another place, but that opportunity was provided only because this House, to the indignation of many, refused to let it through on the nod

and insisted that it be looked into. That is not the only case in my recollection in which Bills have failed through their own defects to fulfil the objectives which they sought to carry out and which had widespread support.
11.30 am
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, I believe that the Bill is nonsense so long as its central concept—the word "indecent"—remains undefined and almost undefinable. I noticed that the Minister ran away from this obvious problem by not using the word himself. He used it only twice in his speech—once in a quotation from the Bill, and once in a quotation from the speech of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. In his own original contribution to the discussion, however, he consistently used the word "pornographic". His speech would indeed have been relevant if clause 1(1) had begun
If any pornographic matter is publicly displayed",
but it was not relevant to the subsection as drafted.
It might have been better if the Bill had used the word "pornographic", as I believe that that word is much easier to define than the word "indecent". When my mother was a girl, the display of the carved legs of dining tables and grand pianos was considered indecent. The more moral ladies of her day used to make frilly covers to hide them so that the bare wood could not be seen.
Tastes change. Halfway between that period and the present day—about half a century ago—page 3 of The Sun would have been considered indecent. I consider it indecent now, because I am revolted by the sexist use of women's bodies to stimulate erotic fantasies. It is not "displayed", of course, because it appears on page 3 and not on page 1. But who is to guarantee that the picture will not be shifted to page 1 at some time in the future? It would be a less revolutionary change than that made by The Times some years ago when it decided to put news on the front page instead of small ads. I also find racist slogans daubed upon the walls of synagogues and mosques offensive. That is my definition. I picked up a so-called comic the other day. I cannot imagine why it is called a comic as I have seen nothing less funny in my life. To me that publication was grossly indecent, not in any sexual or erotic sense, but because it was full of the most appalling violence. I should be far more worried about a 12-year-old grandson picking up that publication than about his picking up pictures of ladies with little or no clothes on.
The word "indecent" therefore means different things at different times and different things to different people. It may well also mean different things to different courts and benches of magistrates. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax pointed out the danger of simply saying that the courts will know what we mean. We all know that different courts in different parts of the country—and often the same court at different times, because magistrates work in rotation and the same people are not always on the bench—take a different view of the same legislation. How can we, therefore, conclude that the courts will be able to apply an objective and consistent interpretation of the word "indecent"?

Mr. Dan Jones: I do not wish to argue against my hon. Friend's theory, but could it not be said that because he has led his life on a far more sophisticated pattern his views are vastly different from those of the average 17 or 18-year-old maiden?

Mr. Mikardo: The reason why I have a very different attitude from the average 17-year-old maiden is not a


matter of lifestyle. It is because I have lived as a member of a different sex and for very much longer. What worries me, however, is not the difference in outlook between 17-year-old maidens and myself, which I accept as a fact of life, but the differences in outlook which are bound to occur between the bench in Halifax and the bench in Burnley. Newsagents in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) will therefore not know what view the bench will take.
I have had many representations from newsagents who are not porn merchants by any means. Outside Soho and a few other areas such as Chelsea, we are not much bothered with sex shops in inner London because they are so readily available a few stations along the Underground line. I am speaking of ordinary newsagents who sell confectionery, newspapers and so on. They are ordinary, decent blokes and they are worried about this measure, as people always worry about things that they cannot clearly understand.
The Minister put his finger on a very important fact. The sex shop boys will get away with anything. As he said, they do not need to have any display. Indeed, the absence of display is their greatest attraction. This, incidentally, relates to another problem to which the hon. Member for Rugby drew attention, when he said that the warning notice might in fact act as a "come-on" to young people—the temptation of forbidden fruit. My own grandson recently reached the age of 18. He goes into pubs less than before, because he is now allowed to do so. In the past, they had the attraction of forbidden fruit. A notice could provide just such an attraction to the 16-year-old who looks 18. Will the newsagent be expected to ask him to produce his birth certificate or what? The sex shop merchants will get away with it. The blank window—the absence of display—is their biggest sales gimmick. They will have advice, and they have all kinds of means of dealing with their problems. I am thinking about the ordinary small newsagent who is already burdened, as we all know, with VAT problems. Having shut his shop, he has to spend all Sunday afternoon on the week's VAT. He is the chap who will get it where the chicken got the chopper, and he is worried about it.
"Indecent" is too vague a term. We cannot rest on a term that is so vague when no attempt has been made to define it. It would have been better if a stronger word such as "pornographic" or "obscene" had been used, because legislation is already in existence that is based on the word "obscene" and we have some experience of interpreting it. No one has had to interpret "indecent". Like my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, I am worried about that.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we are dealing with a public nuisance and an affront? "Obscene" is a strong word that is used in the definition of "pornography". Whether the public should be allowed to see pornography is another matter. After months and years of debate, "indecent" was chosen instead of "grossly offensive to the public" because many Ministers and hon. Members concluded that "indecent" was better. The question arose whether it was possible to define "indecent". As I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, it is not. The question is: should those who consider this matter be the public at large, namely, members of the jury? There may well be one verdict in Margate, another in Plymouth and another in the Western Isles, but what is wrong with that?

Mr. Mikardo: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that many Ministers had considered the matter and had thought "indecent" better than "grossly offensive to the public". They did not give any reason why they thought that. I do not feel bound to accept that as an obiter dictum or as something that I must automatically obey. I do not have to accept it just because Ministers, with their Olympian omniscience, have reached the conclusion—for reasons undisclosed—that "indecent" is preferable to "grossly offensive to the public". I should have thought that the use of the term "public" was advantageous. It is something that can be put to the test. "Grossly offensive to the public", or "believed by the public to be indecent", might be useful terms.
I do not wish to go into detail about a licensing system, because there are problems. However, given what the Minister said, if there were a licensing system and elected representatives of the public were responsible for making the final decisions, they would be obliged to find out what their constituents believed. They would have to discover whether an item was offensive to the public, or believed by the public to be indecent.
The Bill will cause a lot of trouble. Indeed, it will cause trouble to innocent people. It will not cause sex shop marchants any trouble. It will cause trouble without achieving the objectives that the Bill's promoter seeks and that most hon. Members, if not all, would like. For that reason, the limitations that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich proposed would be advantageous. I do not say that they will solve the problem. In terms of the Bill's text, the problems cannot be solved completely. However, they would be advantageous, and on that ground I shall support them.

Mr. Ryman: I had not intended to speak, but, having heard the Minister's comments, I wish to raise two matters. I hope that the Minister will listen to my speech when he has a moment, because I wish to ask him some questions. I am sorry to inconvenience him, but I should like him to expand on something that he referred to which greatly disturbed me, namely, the reference to the representations that the Home Secretary had received from, I believe, the GLC about establishing a pilot scheme for licensing sex shops in the London area with a view to introducing such a system throughout the country. I understood that to be the tenor of his remarks.
11.45 am
I am astonished at that suggestion and am strongly opposed to it. If the Home Secretary intends to introduce legislation to license sex shops, in stages, throughout the country as a result of applications to set them up, a dangerous situation will arise. Such legislation would give the stamp of respectability to those shops and. would inevitably lead to a great increase in their number.
I should like to draw to the Minister's attention an analogous situation. In the early 1960s cash betting, which was illegal on the streets, was confined by legislation to the concept of a cash betting shop. The Betting and Gaming Act 1960, which was succeeded by the 1963 Act, created the concept of a cash betting shop. That led to an enormous increase in cash betting and to the creation of a vast industry worth millions of pounds. That industry has grown over the years and cash betting has increased enormously. That is the danger of introducing a system of licensed sex shops.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is going wide of the amendment. The debate has been wide, but hon. Members should speak to the specific amendment under discussion.

Mr. Ryman: I am talking about the amendment that involves a notice.
The Minister specifically referred to the scheme that the Home Secretary had in mind for introducing licensed sex shops. I support the Bill's promoter in its general object. However, I have grave reservations about various aspects of it. The Minister volunteered something that has been rumoured in newspapers, namely, that the Home Office was seriously considering introducing licensed sex shops. In my respectful submission, that subject is highly relevant to the amendment under consideration. I have risen to express my horror at that suggestion and my strong objection to it.

Mr. Mayhew: I am anxious that there should not be any misunderstanding about the position of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I said that my right hon. Friend was aware that there are those who would like a licensing system to be introduced on a wider scale. I indicated that the GLC was considering taking powers in its own Bill to introduce one in London. I said that my right hon. Friend did not dismiss that idea. However, at this stage, he believes that it would be sensible to assess the effectiveness of what happens, if anything, in London. That was his reaction to the idea.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), I should point out that I said, in relation to legislation on the broad spectrum covered by Williams, that there was no prospect of early legislation. I wish to make it clear that my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider legislation within the lifetime of this Parliament and would be greatly helped by a debate in this House. I cannot give an undertaking about Government time. I hope that I have made the two matters clear.

Mr. Ryman: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. I am glad to know the Home Secretary's thinking on the matter. It confirms one's worst fears, because the Minister seems to confirm the impression that the Home Secretary is contemplating introducing such a scheme, certainly in the London area and perhaps later throughout the country. I strongly object to the introduction of such a scheme, because it would involve enormous increases in the number of sex shops throughout the country.
I wish to inject a note of realism into the debate. I am sympathetic to the small newsagents who have been mentioned, but, as the Minister knows, the vast majority of obscene and pornographic material comes from abroad and is sold at huge profits for the people who manufacture the materials. The only effective way to deal with it is to amend the Customs and Excise legislation to enable Customs officers to seize the material at airports and ports where it enters the country. The material is not just publications, but obscene films, pictures, and so on.
A naive approach has been displayed on occasions during the debate about the sympathy that should be extended to newsagents. They are often specialists. I am not talking about the small newsagents who carry on respectable businesses, but in Soho and elsewhere there are newsagents who specialise in this type of pornographic material and make vast profits from it. They risk running

foul of the law and the obscene publications legislation because even if they are prosecuted and brought to court—in practice, prosecutions are difficult because they involve much police time and expense, and so on—the sentences, normally financial, imposed by the courts are in no way detrimental to the carrying on of that business. The business is so lucrative that the proprietors can afford to pay fines every now and then as part of their running costs.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The kind of shop that I mentioned—I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard my speech—was not necessarily the newsagent shop as such, but the small corner shop in a village which sells many different articles. There is one less than a quarter of a mile from here which sells groceries, a few magazines and paperbacks. Its trade comes from the diversity of the goods that it provides for a limited public. That is the kind of shop that cannot possibly have the materials which the amendments seek to exclude.

Mr. Ryman: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. I am sorry that I was not present to hear his speech, and I apologise for my absence.
The shops that I have in mind are quite different types of premises. The licensing of sex shops would be exploited by the professional porn merchants, and they are not the people to whom my right hon. and learned Friend was referring. They are the professional plyers of pornographic literature with whom the Government should get tough and not encourage, by implication, through a licensing system which can only result in huge financial advantages for them. I hope that the Home Secretary will think carefully before giving his blessing to a system which would give the stamp of respectability to such shops.
I welcome the Bill, and I recognise the difficulties of definition. I welcome, too, the amendments which have been so ably spoken to. However, the reality is that many men are living on the fringe on the criminal law who are systematically importing huge quantities of pornographic literature, films and so on, and who are free to ply their trade through many shops throughout the United Kingdom because the police and Customs officers have inadequate powers at present to control the trade. I accept that the Bill is concerned with display, but the Government should realise that the time has come—quite apart from the implementation of the Williams proposal—to give the police and Customs officers far greater powers to deal with these men who simply laugh at the law. They make huge profits, knowing full well that, if they are prosecuted and convicted, the fines that they will pay are a drop in the ocean compared with the profits that they make year after year. At the moment, the Government are not tackling the problem.

Mr. Sainsbury: May I say, first, what a pleasure it is to have you, Mr. Armstrong, in the Chair on this occasion, since your name was happily associated with the Bill when it originated.
At times today I have been at a loss to know whether this was a Second Reading or a Third Reading debate, or even a general debate on obscene publications and pornography. We have wandered fairly widely over the ground, and only occasionally returned to the amendments.
I welcome the speeches that have been made by hon. Members who had not previously contributed to our


discussions. I welcome what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said about the group of which he is a member, and its support for the Bill. I was also glad to hear the speeches of the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and Blyth (Mr. Ryman).
We have spent much time discussing whether the word "indecent" should be defined. We discussed the matter extensively on Second Reading and very fully in Committee. I recommend all those who spoke on the matter to the relatively unusual occupation for hon. Members of reading the proceedings of a Committee of which they were not a member. We accept that some problems are inherent in the use of the word "indecent", although it has a long legislative history and is a word in common use, but all the alternatives that we considered seemed worse.
12 noon
The debate has highlighted the pressures which inevitably are put on an hon. Member who seeks to introduce Private Member's legislation, either to do much more with his legislation or to do rather less. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) do not misunderstand me because, as the promoter of the Bill, I must steer a course between Scylla and Charybdis if we are to reach the destination which I think the whole House wishes to reach. The legislation is needed, and the repeal provision of the Bill which relates to unsatisfactory nineteenth century legislation is a good justification for it.
The consequences of the legislation, as presently drafted, particularly in relation to the amendments, reflects not only our discussions in Committee but discussions that I have had with a number of organisations which are involved either in operating so-called sex shops or in publishing, distributing or retailing literature of various types, including the National Association of Retail Newsagents. They all agree that there is no likelihood of a widespread proliferation of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman called back rooms. That is not envisaged.
What is envisaged is that magazines, such as Playboy, Mayfair, Penthouse and so on, which have a wide distribution and large sales, will ensure that their covers are not indecent. If their covers are indecent, they will know that their distribution will be limited. Many newsagents—I think the vast majority—and operators of the kind of shops to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred will not wish to display alongside sweets, local papers or anything else material with covers which are offensive to many of their customers. That is not foreseen as a consequence of this measure.
I appreciate what was said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West about sometimes legislating and being surprised at the consequences. I am sure that the other place will consider what has been said in the debate. However, in the light of my knowledge of what the people concerned seem to expect, including the National Association of Retail Newsagents, I should be very surprised if the consequences envisaged because of a warning notice were to follow.
Many premises operate now with so-called warning notices. It is not without interest that when I moved the amendment in Committee to introduce the precise wording

of the warning notice, no other member of the Committee spoke to it. It was accepted without further debate. I think it reflects the view of the Committee.
We put in the precise 'wording for the warning notice because we were uneasily aware that there are warning notices which are very much "come-ons", as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) said. Indeed, they are not only "come-ons" but indecent displays. For that reason, the Committee believed that precise wording for the warning notice was required.
I believe that there is a great concern, not only in the House but throughout the country, about the experience of many people of finding on display in CTN shops—confectionery, tobacconists and newsagents—material that they find distasteful, material which adults, wives, mothers and children do not wish to see on display.
We would be failing in our duty if we followed the line of argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich and said that what is displayed inside the shop does not matter. Concern was expressed on Second Reading and in Committee—and many organisations have written to me expressing their concern—about what is displayed inside shops. It would be a mistake to give the impression that we are not concerned about that aspect.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is showing less than his customary fairness. I made it clear that I could have moved an amendment that went that far, but I deliberately did not. My amendment deals with the requirement for the display of the notice. The protections referred to by the hon. Gentleman are inherent in the Bill, even if it does not have the warning notice provision.

Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps I was being unfair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he did not push his amendment that far. However, others implied that that was the consequence of his amendment. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West suggested that it would be better if we left out what was inside shops. That seems an area of major concern.

Mr. Christopher Price: I should like to set the record straight. The argument is between a specific warning notice in the terms in the Bill and a general duty on the shopkeeper to adhere to the terms of the Bill without the specificity of the warning notice. That seems to be the argument at issue in the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) and myself.

Mr. Sainsbury: Let us confine ourselves to that point. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said, surely we are better fulfilling the purposes of the Bill by giving a warning notice than relying on the proprietor or the staff in a shop preventing young people under 18 years of age from coming in and giving some form of warning about the nature of the material on display. We are concerned about what is on display inside the premises and preventing young people from coming in if there is no warning notice. It could not be done if the person in the shop were busy serving when school childern came in. He would not be able to stop them from coming in and browsing among the material. It is more practical and sensible to fulfil the objectives of the Bill by having a precisely-worded notice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East has done the House a great service by raising this matter—he


was ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby—because he pointed out that the Bill has a limited objective concerned with public display. That is all that is possible in a Private Member's Bill. However, as he pointed out, there is a more serious and different issue—the widespread availability, distribution and sale of the kind of material to which hon. Members have referred. This issue involves a careful judgment of the extent to which it is possible to put moral values and Christian standards into our legal code.
I am glad that the Minister of State, in an intervention to the hon. Member for Blyth, indicated that we can at long last expect a debate on these issues. I believe that there is a widespread feeling that the present situation is unsatisfactory. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Duwich referred to the law as a jungle, and many hon. Members would agree with that view.
There may be wide disagreements between us about what should be done, but that is not the issue. We are concerned, for the reasons that I explained on Second Reading and in Committee, with a limited but worthwhile and necessary objective. There is a wider, important issue, and we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East for drawing attention to it, but I do not think that, within the context and philosophy of the Bill and the way in which it has been presented, defended and supported—the Bill restores the freedom to choose whether or not to look—it would be wise to support my hon. Friend's well-intentioned amendment. I am a little reassured by what the Minister of State finally said about the need to take action in the wider area. Therefore, I ask that the amendment be rejected.

Sir Bernard Braine: I have listened with great care to all that has been said in this interesting debate. I took account particularly of the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who, whatever we may think about particular aspects of it, has steered the Bill through with skill and reasonableness.
I confess that I am in difficulty over my amendment. The motive behind the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) differs greatly, for honourable reasons, which I respect and understand, from my amendment. I am anxious not to frustrate this modest interim measure—that is all it is—but I was moved by the modest claim made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove.
The Bill will not have much impact without a system of licensing, a definition of indecency and enforcement. That is why it was imperative for us to know that the Government are considering legislation to deal with the larger question of definition. It took my hon. and learned Friend the Minister a little time, but his last intervention eased my mind somewhat. I did not expect the Government to consider introducing legislation next Session, but I understand that the Home Secretary is ready to consider legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament. We shall hold the Government to that.
It is, therefore, only fair to allow the Bill to have a fair wind in another place. What has been said this morning will receive a great deal of attention there. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 1, line 18, leave out from second 'shop' to end of line 20.—[Mr. S. C. Silkin.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'public or".
The amendment reflects again the lengthy debate that we had in Committee when we discussed the exclusions in the Bill. A number of categories of display and place are altogether excluded from the provisions of the Bill, including television, broadcasting and art galleries. The wording in subsection 4(c) is
displayed by or with the authority of, and visible only from within a building occupied by, the Crown or any public or local authority".
The exclusion has a long history and derives from the 1973 Bill. It has changed its wording at various times. The justification for the exclusion is that Crown and local authority bodies are democratically elected and publicly accountable for what they do. For example, local authorities in public libraries and other municipal facilities sometimes have exhibitions which, if they were in private premises, would come under another exclusion. Health authorities come under the Government and so are Crown authorities. Therefore, exhibitions of material in connection with health—perhaps in connection venereal disease—in health authority premises are included under the crown authority exclusion. Further, as the Government are always exempt from law unless it is specifically provided to the contrary, we do not need to include the exclusions, but perhaps it makes the issue a little clearer.
We had a lengthy debate about public authorities such as the London Underground and bookstalls at railway stations in which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) played a leading part. We concluded that, as drafted, the Bill was unsatisfactory. On further reflection it is clear that, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by not applying the exemption to public authorities, which would include bodies as diverse as the British Steel Corporation and British Telecom. We see no reason why they should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. I hope that the House will see fit to accept this small amendment.

Mr. Mikardo: What is the precise definition of "public"? The BSC is a public authority. Works canteens can be used to display pictures painted by employees. How can a distinction be drawn between displays in a BSC canteen, in a local hospital canteen, in the local borough council canteen and in the canteen of a near by privately owned company? Some are covered and some are not. Why should something be permitted in a local authority canteen and not in the BSC canteen, or vice-versa?

Mr. Sainsbury: The exclusion relates only to matter:
displayed by or with the authority of, and visible only from within a building occupied by, the Crown or any public or local authority".
Displays in canteens are not public displays, because the public are not normally admitted to them, so in both cases there is equality of treatment.

Mr. Mikardo: What about entrance halls and foyers, which are open to the public? How then is the distinction drawn?

Mr. Sainsbury: There is no need for a distinction, as we are excluding public authorities from the exclusion. Public and private authorities are being treated equally. The remaining exclusion is only for the Crown and local authorities.

Mr. Christopher Price: It is unusual for the promoter of the Bill to table amendments on Report. He normally keeps his remarks short.
I am concerned about London Transport. Some people at the GLC believe that London Transport premises are GLC premises. Others believe they are part of London Transport. Is the assumption that the amendment will bring London Transport back within the provisions of the Bill? If so, on what advice was the assumption made?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that my introductory remarks were brief. The amendment is in response to an undertaking in Committee, partly because we were not then able to determine to our satisfaction whether what one could see, for example, in a tube station on an escalator or on the platform, was a local or public authority matter. However, the Home Office assures me:
It seems clear from the terms of the Transport (London) Act 1969 that it is the London Transport Executive, not the GLC, which is directly responsible for the London Underground system and that it is the LTE who would be regarded as the occupier of the premises concerned".
One of the principal purposes of the amendment is to ensure, for example, that the premises of the London Underground are included under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: In Committee many hon. Members were concerned not so much about this specific point, which we realised creates difficulties, but because it is yet another example of the wide range of complexities introduced into the Bill by not confining it to the narrow purpose of cleaning up the streets of Soho but extending it to entry into buildings. The need for this distinction arose only when the question of entry to buildings, where people can go if they wish but do not have to go, was introduced. If the Bill were confined to display in the streets, this would hit against the assault upon people's susceptibilities, which cannot be avoided when everyone has a right to passage along the street.
It may be some consolation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) to know that if a canteen, apart from selling food, sells chocolates and other commodities, as most do, it may well be a shop and fall within the provision where, if a notice is posted in the terms described in the Bill, there is exemption for people over 18 years of age.

Mr. Dan Jones: I have listened attentively to the debate. I have been staggered by the number of legal objections put forward. I wonder whether that part of the community, equally as important as the legal faction, namely, our constituents, has been consulted. The constituents of Burnley, a town I am proud to represent, has always respected an old-fashioned and well-established morality. I concede that the legal points are important to the legal fraternity. Is it not equally important that those in the constituencies should be consulted?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

POWERS OF ARREST, SEIZURE AND ENTRY

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 6, leave out 'or attempted to commit'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'or is about to be'.

Dr. Summerskill: The Bill is already vague because there is no definition of the main word used in it; we should not make it even vaguer by including the phrases that the amendments seek to omit. If the promoter is unable to accept the amendments, I hope that he will give some examples of the type of offence he has in mind which can be shown to be an attempt to commit an offence or an offence is about to be committed.
How are the police to interpret these phrases? Would they have to enter premises in order to ascertain whether a person has attempted to present an indecent display or is about to cause an indecent display in the near or distant future? It seems to me that the police would find it hard to identify such a situation and would find it hard to prove. They have enough to do without spending their time on this sort of activity.
An attempt to put on an indecent display is vague. It was an argument which was strongly put against a law prohibiting obscene publications. The suggestion has been made that it could foster opportunities for the corruption of an individual policeman because of its vagueness and that it could lead to a situation where the police would lean on people on the ground that they were attempting to commit an offence or, under the phrase in amendment No. 5, were about to commit an offence. At what point does a person start to be about to commit an offence? It would be clearer if it was an offence like housebreaking or assault. It seems to me unclear how one can be about to commit an indecent display.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) will appreciate that the Bill will be greatly improved and clarified and also easier to enforce if these phrases are deleted.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: In Committee I found myself constantly in the unhappy situation of opposing amendments moved by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). It gives me pleasure in this case to say that I believe that the hon. Lady has made a reasonable point. The present wording of the Bill could cause the confusion to which she refers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) will give serious and perhaps favourable consideration to the points she made.

Mr. Christopher Price: I echo strongly those words. Hon. Members who want the Bill to reach the statute book do not want to see it dragging in its train the reintroduction of things like "sus" and other things that we have been trying to get rid of.
To ask a constable to make a judgment about whether someone is about to attempt to introduce an indecent display seems a total waste of police time. It seems an absurd judgment to try to make. It goes against every single thing that this House has tried to do to make the job of the police easier, more sensible and less oppressive. We


want to try to draft a law that is clear so that if people are prosecuted, it is easy to deal with the matter. If endless argument takes place about what someone was attempting to do, it will bring not only the Bill but legislation generally into contempt.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) for making his remarks so cogently and briefly. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) moved a number of amendments in Committee, but, for various reasons, I was not able to recommend their acceptance. On this occasion, I am happy to support her amendments, which are sensible improvements to the largely standard clause relating to arrest, seizure and entry which was included in Committee. I agree with what the hon. Lady said about the offence not being one that a person could be about to commit.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not want to delay the implementation of this happy consensus, but, even following the acceptance of the amendment, I am still unhappy about the clause, because "sus" remains.
I am surprised that the Minister of State has not taken a greater interest in the amendment, because, after people have been beating at the doors of the Home Office for years, Ministers have at last recognised that there is something deeply repugnant about the concept of a person being proceeded against not because he has committed a crime but because someone suspects that he may be going to commit a crime.
The Home Office has responded in the widest sense and we are moving, but, by a sidewind in a Private Member's Bill, "sus" is brought back again. Even with the amendments, "sus" is still there and I regret that the consensus does not go a good deal further.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 3, line 18, leave out `or is about to be'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 4

PENALTIES

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 1, after `(1)', insert 'In England and Wales'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following: Government amendment No. 8,
Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 3 leave out from `to' to 'a' in line 4.
Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 5 leave out 'or both'.
Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 5 leave out from `both' to end of line 7.
Amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 6 leave out from 'to' to 'a' in line 7.
Amendment No. 19, in page 4, line 7 leave out 'or both'.

Mr. Mayhew: As drafted, clause 4 provides maximum penalties, on summary conviction, of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum—£1,000—or both, and, on conviction on indictment, of a term of imprisonment not exceeding

two years or a fine or both. In England and Wales, therefore, it is triable summarily in the lay magistrates' court and, where the magistrates so decide, or the accused so chooses, on indictment in the Crown court.
By section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, however, where a statute does not otherwise provide, it is competent for the lay district court to try only statutory offences with a maximum penalty limited to a fine of £200 or 60 days' imprisonment or both. Summary jurisdiction over offences of indecent display under clause 4 as it stands is therefore confined to the sheriff court.
As set out in section 380(5) of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the Indecent Advertisement Act 1889, the offence of indecent display in Scotland currently carries penalties below the limit of £200 and/or 60 days, thus making it triable in the district court. Although the offence will vary in seriousness according to the nature of the material and the circumstances of its commission, it may in some cases be no more than a relatively minor public nuisance. With such cases in mind, it seems advisable to retain the option of trying the offence in the district court, in order to avoid burdening the already overloaded sheriff court unnecessarily. Moreover, in such cases, it can be argued that this is a function appropriate to the district court, the local lay nature of which may more accurately reflect the moral consensus of the community which has been offended by the display.
For those reasons we think that it is sensible to amend clause 4 by extending summary jurisdiction over the offence of indecent display in Scotland to the district court. In order to ensure that only minor cases are so tried, the penalties available in the district court should be limited to a maximum fine of £200 and/or a maximum of 60 days' imprisonment. Summary trial of the offence of indecent display before lay justices, which, as the Bill is drafted, is possible in England and Wales, will thus also be possible in Scotland. I commend the amendments to the House. I think that it would be convenient for me to ask the leave of the House later to reply to what is said on the other amendments.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I congratulate the Minister of State on the erudition he displays in Scottish law, to add to all his other accomplishments. He read his speech extraordinarily well. The amendments to which he spoke and the one he intends to propose are formalities—I think he will agree with that—if one accepts the general proposition that the power to imprison is a necessary part of the Bill and of the offence.
I hope in due course to move amendment No. 12 which is directed to the fundamental question whether in such a Bill it is necessary to have imprisonment, especially within the powers of a court of summary jurisdiction. I appreciate that a number of amendments have been tabled which seek to do various things, but I am considering that which seeks to remove the power of a court of summary jurisdiction to impose imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months but which leaves the fine. If that amendment were carried there would still remain the power, in the more serious type of offence or repeated offence, to move to subsection (1)(b) which enables a person to be tried on indictment. In that case, imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years is available. There is a separate amendment seeking to remove that power.
In considering amendment No. 12, I am proceeding on the assumption that in that respect the Bill will not be altered. I am suggesting that in relation to this offence it is unnecessary to make the change—indeed that such a move would be contrary to the expressed view of the Home Secretary, the Lord Chief Justice and other people who are much concerned with the prison population, the overcrowding and the results that flow from that. Recently in newspapers we have had further drastic confirmation of the results of unnecessarily adding to the possibility of sentencing people to imprisonment.
My amendment would remove from a summary court the power to sentence to a term of imprisonment and would leave it with the not unsubstantial penalty available to fine up to the statutory maximum of £1,000—a considerable fine. We must consider the issue against that background. We are not dealing with the sale, publication or distribution of obscene publications or articles because they are dealt with, as I have already pointed out, in other legislation, which is given effect to both by the powers of seizure and condemnation and by the powers to prosecute for an offence.
The matter is also dealt with in the Customs legislation relating to the entry into this country of indecent material. Therefore, there are wide powers to deal with the more serious types of offence, the hard porn and so on, so long as it is considered necessary to have those powers. They are on the statute book today.
What we are dealing with is something less than that, that which is not obscene but indecent. We are dealing simply with the display of that which is indecent, in the streets or within buildings. That is a much narrower and more limited type of offence, as I pointed out in our long debate earlier.
I am not disputing the value of the Bill, but I pick up the words used by the Minister in his speech on the first group of amendments, the main group, when he pointed out that we were dealing with an environmental matter—indeed, the kind of matter that might well be dealt with not by the criminal law but easily, with sufficient planning powers, by planning legislation. It was interesting that when the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the possible future intention of the Home Secretary with regard to the licensing of sex shops it was in that very context of planning legislation that he was talking, rather than in the context of the criminal law.
That is how we are considering the question of indecent displays. Again and again the Minister has emphasised that. I entirely agree that we are concerned with people's susceptibilities being upset by what they see in public, whether in the streets or, as the Bill stands, in the shops that they have to go into, in exactly the same way as people's susceptibilities are upset by seeing other kinds of serious contraventions of what they regard as suitable and appropriate to their neighbourhood. The lamer problems are dealt with by legislation that does not have the backing of the criminal law.
Why, then, are we even giving the power to a court of summary jurisdiction to sentence people to imprisonment for this offence? Why are we, by doing that, encouraging courts of summary jurisdiction to say "This is an offence that Parliament thought sufficiently grave, even perhaps on a first offence, to send someone to prison for a breach of the law"? I can see no reason for that. I do not think that it is necessary for a deterrent, because the deterrents are adequate. It does not conform with the way in which

Parliament recently dealt with the same type of matter in other legislation, where, in Committee, the power to imprison for an offence of similar gravity was removed. It does not conform with the philosophy of the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice in seeking to persuade the courts not to send people to prison unnecessarily.
I am aware that we dealt with the matter in Committee, but it is of such importance that we should deal with it in the House. It should be on record as having been dealt with here, so that whatever happens here can be looked at in another place in due course. In those circumstances, it is my intention, after we have dealt with the preceding amendment, formally to move this amendment.

Mr. Dan Jones: We are given to understand that a lot of money is to be made in this illicit and, to me, very dangerous practice. Is it possible—I ask the question; I am not trying to answer it—that if that money were available and my right hon. and learned Friend's recommendations were carried out, people could escape their responsibilities by breaking the law?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend raises a perfectly valid point. I take his point to be that there may be a person who breaks the law and continues to break it day by day because it is worth while his paying out fines, even of £1,000. The answer is that as the Bill stands, if the amendment that I am now proposing to move were carried, there would remain the provisions in subsection 1(b) enabling such a person to be tried on indictment, and there the fine would be unlimited. In addition to that, there would be, in the last resort, the possibility of imprisonment for a term of up to two years.
But when we come to the sort of offence that might possibly be committed by the owner of the kind of shop about which we have been talking so often, the corner shop, I ask whether it is necessary to have in the background this heavy power of imprisonment available to a court of summary jurisdiction? My answer is "No."

Mr. Dan Jones: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Christopher Price: The inclusion in a Bill of this kind of such a provision for imprisonment is the sort of thing that sometimes brings about the danger of a perfectly worthwhile Private Member's Bill getting lost. I earnestly appeal to the sponsor to take on board the seriousness with which some of us view this amendment. I have put down other amendments, Nos. 17 and 19, which would remove imprisonment on being convicted on indictment from superior courts as well as from summary jurisdiction. I very much hope that these amendments are called and that the House is able to decide on these matters.
The report of the prison department which WEB issued yesterday is highly relevant to the introduction of new legislation with extra requirements for imprisoning more people. We in this House cannot for ever go on behaving in this hypocritical manner, saying, on the one hand, that we wish to reduce the prison population and, with our other legislative hand, raising it time and again. I do not see the sponsor bobbing up and down, as he was doing on the previous amendment, ready to concede. But I very much hope that on this amendment he takes these arguments seriously, because it is 10 minutes to 1 o'clock


now and it would be nice to have some indication that these arguments were to be taken seriously and that some concession could be given on this point.
I now respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) in his recent intervention. I appreciate its validity. However, if there are prosecutions under the Bill, I am sure that the vast number will be against innocent small shopkeepers for whom imprisonment would be ludicrous. If prosecutions are against owners of Soho bookstalls, my hon. Friend feels that imprisonment might be the appropriate penalty. I can only tell him that in all too many cases the real criminals never go to gaol. In Soho, especially, someone is nearly always put up to go to gaol, and that is made very much more easy by clause 3, which refers to "a body corporate". Often shell companies own the sex bookshops, and it is difficult to find any of the directors of the companies. The directors with the money and the control more often than not are in the Channel Islands or somewhere else outside the jurisdiction of our courts.
The clause goes on to say that where
it is proved that the offence occurred with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body",
both he and the company are guilty. The object is to get someone to prison, assuming that it is possible to get to the end of the road. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the people who own these bookshops are extremely well to do. They can afford expensive lawyers such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), although I am sure that he has never taken on such a brief in his career. I mean that they can afford the sort of scale of fees that it is now my right hon. and learned Friend's custom, in his great eminence, to charge.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: My fees are moderate.

Mr. Price: I am quite sure that they could afford to brief half a dozen lawyers of the calibre of the Minister, when he is relieved of his office and is back practising at the Bar, assuming that they want him to defend them.

Mr. Silkin: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that I have never represented such a person.

Mr. Price: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would not accept that sort of work. However, it always amazes me when I see the sorts of people whom our legal friends are willing to represent in their legal careers from time to time. But I am also sure that the Minister has been represented any such interest and, in any event, I have no intention of pressing him on the matter.
I was trying to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley that even if it was possible to imprison such people, in the end the persons imprisoned would be some poor, unfortunate so-called company secretaries who did not know what they were doing, and not the persons whom I know my hon. Friend would like to imprison.

Mr. Dan Jones: Time is not on my side.

Mr. Price: Nor, I suspect, on the side of any of us at the moment.
Even on indictment and even beyond summary jurisdiction, I do not think that there is any point in imprisonment. If people are known to be making very

large sums of money, I believe that the proper way for the courts to deal with the trade is, in effect, to tax them—to fine them very heavily and, if necessary, repeatedly.
It has been said again and again that this Bill is intended only to control indecent displays. It is a very limited Bill. There are other elements of legislation, especially that dealing with obscene publications, where very heavy fnes are available and where, if necessary, it is possible both to fine and to imprison offenders.
We want the Bill and I want a concession from the Government. The Government have a greater influence over the promoter on legal matters than on other drafting problems. I know that when it is 12.55 pm and we are discussing a Bill which must be fully considered by 2.30 pm, I am in a strong position.
The concession that I want is particularly proper the day after a unique report on the work of the prison department was issued by the director-general of the department, who has written in terms which no such director-general has written before in any report.
Paragraph 11 of the report states:
No substantial relief from the problem of overcrowding through the provision of additional accommodation is in sight.
The director-general discusses prisons falling down and states:
The existing estate is suffering from years of neglect and problems of maintenance exacerbated by overcrowding, shortage of works staff and tradesmen. Indeed, the maintenance—sometimes the shoring up—of worn-out building is one of our greatest problems. We have to run ever faster in order to stand still, to keep pace with the rate of decay.
That is what is happening to Britain's prisons. it is described not by a sensational newspaper or the Sunday Times "Insight" column but by a civil servant presenting a report to Parliament.
The report goes on:
At present we have not arrested the rate of decay. It is sometimes suggested that the new prisons we are planning would not be needed if the prison population fell; that argument is based on a fallacy that existing buildings are adequate".
The director-general quotes the all-party group which said:
We cannot overstate the seriousness with which we view the present situation in our prisons; it is an affront to human dignity, contains real dangers for the lives and well-being of both staff and prisoners and detracts from the world-wide reputation of British justice.
The director-general quotes that with approbation and says that it is an illustration of the growing public realisation of the implications of the burden of excessive prison populations.
He continues:
Coupled with this realisation has been an increasing acceptance that the chronic overcrowding crisis in our prisons constitutes a threat to the criminal justice system as a whole and that a reduction in the prison population is not only desirable but essential.
If I wished to initiate a classic filibuster I could read many more of the director-general's remarks. For the first time the senior civil servant responsible for prisons, in a report to Parliament, is telling the House that there is an imminent crisis in the prisons. Many people have been saying that for some time. There is a seething crisis which could blow up like Brixton, yet the Home Offfice is sanctioning and agreeing with a Private Member's Bill which will increase the number of offences punishable by imprisonment.
What are those offences? The whole burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) was that this is a limited Bill. It is a Bill which deals with the


environment. It does not seek to cover the whole Williams committee area or the whole range of obscene publications. It is an extremely limited Bill to deal with a particular subject. I entirely agree. That is what it is and what it has properly been fashioned into on Second Reading and in Committee.
1 pm
Yet when we come to the penalty provisions we find sentences of six months on summary conviction and two years on indictment. Why? Surely if we wish to treat this as a limited, environmental Bill, that should be recognised in the penalties. To the extent that the promoter is influenced by the Minister of State, whom I regard as the chief influence in this matter, one must ask why the Home Office consistently talks with about six heads and six voices in these matters.
We are told that the Home Office wishes to reduce the prison population. Yet it effectively seeks to increase that population by advising the promoter to retain the penalty of imprisonment in the Bill. The prison officers recently forced the Home Office to reduce the prison population by their industrial action and nothing very terrible seems to have happened as a result. Yet those on the criminal side of the Home Office, which I do not regard as the sharper, more humane or even more enlightened side of that greater Department of State, persuade the promoter to stick in the same old penalty of
on summary conviction … imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months … or …
on conviction on indictment … imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years".
I know the argument that the Minister will advance, so I hope that he will not come out with it, as it were, raw. He will say that imprisonment will not be used, that he does not envisage it being used in any but the most exceptional cases, that the courts will normally rely on fines but that they must have a longstop or a backstop for really serious cases. They already have that. There are plenty of laws relating to obscene publications and so forth under which such cases may be dealt with.
The real danger is that in areas where magistrates are not familiar with the rules and tariffs, as it were, in some area such as Ashby-de-la-Zouch, a little tobacconist will be shoved into gaol, which was not at all what Parliament intended, and there will be a national outcry.
One way to achieve a reasonable degree of uniformity in the operation of the legislation is to exclude imprisonment. We are honoured with the presence of two Ministers today. I should have thought that the first of May would be a very good day to bring in new resolutions. It would be a wonderful day for the Home Office to turn over a new leaf and to make a good new resolution to the effect that we should not advise any legislation to be enacted that includes a term of imprisonment unless we are convinced that it is necessary. With not only two Ministers, but rows of functionaries witnessing us, the Home Office could make a concession that would enable the Bill to go on its way nice and smoothly. I am sure that the Bill's promoter does not feel terribly strongly one way or the other about imprisonment on summary conviction. If a concession were made, the Bill would go to the House of Lords in better shape.

Dr. Summerskill: The main purpose of amendment No. 7 is to ensure that the offence mentioned in the Bill

is treated as a non-custodial offence. I fully support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).
A few weeks ago the House did not oppose a Ten-Minute Bill that sought to make prostitution a non-custodial offence. There is not only a crisis in our prisons but a general feeling among those who work with offenders and among those who have anything to do with criminal law that we should try to keep people out of prison. It is felt that if they have to go to prison sentences should be shorter. Such views have been expressed by the Home Secretary, the Lord Chief Justice and several eminent judges as well as by report after report from those who work in the prison service and with offenders. The Home Office has now produced a report.
This legislation is new. There is no reason for saying that we are decustodialising an existing offence. We are creating an offence in a new Bill. We could start to think in terms of larger fines instead of imprisonment. This type of offence should be dealt with by means of fines. I believe that the maximum fine should be greater than £1,000, but that is not mentioned in the amendment.
On 8 March 1981, The Observer quoted a Soho pornographer—I do not know how he came by the title—as saying "Fine us £1,000 a day and we might begin to feel the pinch." In Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) suggested a daily fine. Those involved have a great deal of money. Some are tax exiles because they have too much money.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: My hon. Friend will recall that I moved an amendment in Committee, but it was slapped down by the Establishment view of the Home Office.

Dr. Summerskill: Some of those involved have too much money and have to flee the country in order to keep it. Lower down the scale are small newsagents. This morning, I received a letter from Grosvenor Public Relations Ltd. Other hon. Members may have received the same letter. It was sent on behalf of the publishers of adult magazines. It pointed out that indecent displays carry a severe financial penalty. It may be severe for some, but not for others. It says:
Small newsagents represent a trade which is particularly hard pressed at the moment and adult magazines provide a major proportion of their income".
That is a revelation to me. I did not know that adult magazines provided a major proportion of the income of small newsagents. So they will be affected financially if the Bill is enforced in the way that we hope. Fines will hit the small newsagents. In my opinion, they should be used as sparingly as possible.
My amendment seeks to do away with two years as a maximum term of imprisonment. It would leave only summary conviction, which does not exceed six months. If my amendment fails, I shall support amendment No. 12, standing in my name and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich and others, which seeks to leave out imprisonment altogether on summary conviction.
It is now the established official Opposition view that, wherever possible, offenders should not be sent to prison if that can be avoided. Research has shown again and again that imprisonment does not prevent recidivism, and that long-term imprisonment is useless. Any effect that imprisonment has occurs in the first month.
In the existing law, which has been totally ineffective concerning indecent displays, the penalties have not proved a deterrent. They include the possibility of imprisonment, so it cannot be claimed that the present penalties are effective enough. Imprisonment under the new law will not be a deterrent, nor will it be effective. There are few prosecutions under existing law, not because of the penalties or lack of them but because of other factors. We come back to the vagueness of the law, and the fact that no one knows what it is or what it means. Prosecutions are simply not taking place. We do not get as far as consideration of penalties because people are not being prosecuted.
In introducing new legislation with new penalties, we must study the matter in the context of the serious prison crisis and the fact that the Home Secretary himself is urging the courts to keep people out of prison. Presumably, therefore, he would also urge Parliament to do likewise in legislation.

Mr. Sainsbury: Subject to anything that we may decide about the second group of amendments affecting England, Scotland and Wales, I commend the amendments which affect Scotland moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister.
Secondly, I appreciate the seriousness of the issues that have been raised by hon. Members.
I agree that we should minimise the occasions on which people should be sent to prison. The best way to do that, of course, is to prevent the crimes which require that deterrent. I also accept that it is sensible to equip ourselves with a range of alternatives to prison—perhaps a rather wider range of alternatives than we have at present—to achieve better the objective of minimising our prison population. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will recognise that on this matter, as on others, a balance has to be struck, taking into account the fact that penalties in the Bill are alternatives which are the maximum sentence that can be imposed. Incidentally, they are the same penalties as were in the Bill debated on Second Reading. They were not changed in Committee.
1.15 pm
There are problems associated with this offence which are a little different from other offences which appear to be of similar gravity. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) rightly pointed out that this is a limited Bill, but we have the problem of persistent offenders. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) referred to a report of one such case and of a fine of £1,000 a day being necessary as a real deterrent in view of the profits that people are able to make.
We must recognise that criminal elements are undoubtedly involved in the pornography trade and the operation of some of the least satisfactory premises which would be subject to the provisions of this legislation. We know about the size of profits. Indeed, there has been strong criticism of the inadequacy of penalties in existing legislation, and comments have been made during the various stages of the Bill about the major defect of the inadequacy of penalties within it.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not know whether the pornography trade, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was the one with which he was having discussions a few

weeks ago. There are various categories of people in the trade, some of whom are criminal. But in view of the report on the prisons, which was not available on Second Reading—the crisis has become even more grave since then—would not the right technique be to take out the summary imprisonment provisions now, in the hope that the other place will have another look at the question of fines and with some confidence that for persistent offenders the level of fines appropriate to deal with the £1,000 a day problem referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) might be sorted out.

Mr. Sainsbury: I have sympathy with that point. Whatever we do or do not say, I am sure that the other place, which has many expert lawyers among its members, will look carefully at these provisions.
I understand that the maximum fine on summary conviction is £1,000—I think that is right. If so, there will be a problem if we limit proceedings under the Bill to summary trial, because the maximum fine would remain at £1,000. That is a weakness in the amendment to which the hon. Member for Halifax spoke. We must keep trial on indictment, ignoring the issue of imprisonment, because otherwise there will be no opportunity for imposing the size of fines that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West suggested would be necessary for persistent offenders under this legislation.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I feel it only fair to give the hon. Gentleman a warning. I am principally concerned with amendment No. 12. It is our intention to press that amendment to a Division if we do not get any assurance from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sainsbury: I was proposing later to deal with amendment No. 12. In the light of what was said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, it would seem necessary to preserve trial on indictment, leaving aside imprisonment, because only in that way could we impose fines of the kind that the House agrees would be appropriate for certain offences under this legislation.
The point about imprisonment comes up at two levels—first, on summary trial and, secondly, on trial by indictment. To deal with them in the reverse order, if we are concerned with an offence that can involve persistent offenders making large profits, even the opportunity for courts to impose large fines is not sufficient reason for taking away the ultimate deterrent in the most serious cases.
Imprisonment is appropriate for a persistent offender. In some cases, there may be difficulty in enforcing fines. It may be difficult to get behind the screen—and the case of an unfortunate company secretary was referred to—to the people who derive the profits from the trade in pornography. It may be difficult to get at them in order to get fines of sufficient size paid. It is, therefore, right to keep at least at that level the ultimate deterrent of imprisonment.
However, I am receptive to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments about whether it is right to retain the power to imprison for summary conviction. He has put forward a strong case why it should not be necessary at that level. I do not wish to criticise magistrates where it was suggested that they may reach unexpected decisions, but as long as we preserve the power of imprisonment upon trial and conviction on indictment, so that there is full


scope to deal wth the most serious and persistent offenders, there is a strong case for taking away the power of imprisonment and leaving a maximum fine of £1,000 at the lower level. I am sympathetic to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments on amendment No. 12.
I shall listen with interest to what my hon. and learned Friend has to say. Perhaps we should leave the point to be reflected upon and to be considered in another place.

Mr. James A. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman would be wise to reach an accommodation on the amendment before the Minister gives advice. If the Minister, for an adequate and good official reason, advises against the amendment, the further proceedings of the Bill may be in severe jeopardy, which I want to avoid at all costs. If later advice is not to accept the amendment, the matter can be changed in another place, but let us pass the amendment here.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says, but, bearing in mind the Minister's responsibilities for the administration of justice and the penalties involved, it would be rash to jump to a conclusion without hearing him. However, there is a powerful case for removing imprisonment on summary trial, as long as we keep it on trial by indictment.

Mr. Mayhew: It has been an interesting debate, which will no doubt continue, but it may be helpful if I state now how the Government view the difficult question of the appropriate maximum sanctions for any offence created by new legislation and what the nature of those sanctions should be.
I agree that we must have regard to the persistent offender. We are dealing, as is acknowledged by both sides of the House, with very big business. Some who are engaged in this business regard the fines available to magistrates' courts as a form of VAT to be written off against expenses while they continue in business. One needs to have regard to that situation when considering whether to keep available trial by jury on indictment. Nothing would cause this House to be brought into greater contempt than for hon. Members to go through all these hoops but to allow the prosecuting authorities to secure no greater sanction than a fine of £1,000. That would be laughed off.
One has to preserve the option of trial on indictment for offences under this Bill which are of a more serious character. Persistent and deliberate repetition must fall within that category. It is a flouting of the law and the will of Parliament if people simply say that they are content to go on being prosecuted and paying the fine. An individual engaged in this business in a big way might adopt that approach. It seems eminently reasonable that the court should have available the maximum penalties that are prescribed in the Bill for conviction on indictment.
I listened with great care to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) not only because of his great experience in these matters as a former Law Officer but because of the care that he took throughout the Committee proceedings on the Bill. I do not think that it avails the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that we are discussing an environmental matter and that imprisonment is in no circumstances suitable or appropriate for an offence of this kind. We are dealing with a Bill that approaches the matter in an environmental way. We are dealing with a Bill that says it is wrong that people should have this material thrust

before them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that in some instances planning law and environmental law contain the sanction of imprisonment in the case of a breach.
All hon. Members have read reports of the case earlier this year in which listed buildings were destroyed deliberately and without permission in order to overcome the need for spending a large amount of money on restoring them. The relevant statute provided on summary conviction for a fine of £1,000 or three months' imprisonment and, on indictment, for 12 months' imprisonment together with a fine which, I think, was unlimited. Even in planning law, there is the sanction of imprisonment in certain instances for breach.
I approach the issues raised by the amendments and by the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) in that way. The hon. Gentleman founded his speech upon the overcrowding in the prisons. I agree with every word that he used to describe the gravity of the situation. It has been described in the prison department report in terms that have not previously been employed. It is right that all proper and practicable steps should be taken to reduce the prison population to an extent that is compatible with maintaining the safety of the public. However, it does not follow that any new offence should carry only the sanction of a fine and not the sanction of imprisonment.
We ask that those who are responsible for sentencing should ask themselves whether a custodial sentence is necessary before proceeding to pass one, and in the vast majority of cases that practice is already followed. However, it is proper for Parliament to ask whether there is a need for the possibility of a custodial sentence when it creates a new offence.
For the reasons that I have given, I am sure not only that there should be the right of the possibility of trial on indictment for serious offences, but that in such circumstances there should be the power of imprisonment. Magistrates can be trusted in summary trials not to impose imprisonment except where it is proper to do so, and there is an appeal structure to put right cases in which magistrates may have gone wrong.
In the cases that we are considering the House may think it proper to think carefully about whether magistrates necessarily need to have the power of imprisonment. As long as serious cases can be dealt with, where the court thinks fit, by means of a sentence of imprisonment, I do not believe that the Bill's impact would be seriously diminished if the power of magistrates were limited to fining offenders. If that assists my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) in determining how to respond to at least one of the amendments, I am glad.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No 12, in page 4, line 3, leave out from `to' to `a' in line 4.

No. 13, in page 4, line 5, leave out 'or both'.—[Mr. C. S. Silkin.]

No. 8, in page 4, line 7, at end insert—
'(IA) In Scotland, any person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction—
(i) in the district court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 60 days or a fine not exceeding £200 or both;
(ii) in the sheriff court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; or


(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both. '.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to express my thanks publicly to all who have assisted me in the preparation and progress of the Bill, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at an earlier stage in our proceedings. It has been a privilege to have support from so many quarters in the House, together with a great deal of support and encouragement from outside organisations and a massive mail, more than 99 per cent. of which has been in favour of the legislation.
As I have pointed out, the Bill is a relatively modest measure. However, it is necessary and useful. Its objective is clear—to remove indecent material from public display and, by so doing, to restore to people their freedom to choose whether to look at such material.
It has come out as clearly in our proceedings today as it did on Second Reading and in Committee that the Bill does not seek to deal with a more serious and perplexing problem—that of the availability of hard pornography. I hope that as a result of what has been said on Report that the House will shortly turn its attention to the serious and worrying problem. There is a strong feeling on both sides of the House that the present law is profoundly unsatisfactory. I hope that we can make early progress on that.
The Bill is concerned with public nuisance rather than private behaviour. Whether we look on it as a worthwhile measure of protection for the family or upholding, albeit in a small way, Christian moral standards which have been neglected in the country and in the House for rather too long or as prohibiting a public nuisance, I commend the Bill as a worthwhile though modest step towards improving the environment of our public places and providing protection to our citizens from indecent, obscene and at times filthy material which they do not wish to see.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I join in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on presiding over the Third Reading of this measure. As has already been said, you were one of the original sponsors.
I congratulate the hon. Member of Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on his initiative, when he came first in the Ballot when there were clamours for Bills of all kinds. He was wise to tread quietly and slowly along the path he has been travelling with his Bill. I offer him my congratulations.
Within the last two weeks in my constituency a sex shop has opened. I have been inundated with correspondence from all over Carlisle from both men and women voicing strong opposition to the opening of that shop. Although I refrained from speaking to the amendments, I was pleased to hear the Minister speak about the consultations with the Department of the Environment to see whether it could help. I telephoned the Department of the Environment and the Carlisle civic centre to see what help they could give in trying to stop this shop going ahead. I was advised that

they could do nothing. The only control they have is over outside advertising. I am assured that they will do everything that they can about the advertising on the walls.
I received a deputation just two weeks ago from men and women genuinely concerned about the shop. The sex shop has opened close to a public convenience. The greatest concern that many of my constituents have is that they are worried about the possibility that young people might buy pornographic publications and go into the toilets where they might be confronted by homosexuals. That is a genuine concern in Carlisle.
I am glad that the Bill, even though it is a modest measure as we have all said, is a step in the right direction. As the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said, I too would like to see the Bill go further. However, we must proceed a step at a time and this measure will bring a small ray of comfort to men and women throughout the country who are opposed to the spread of the disease that has grown in our society over the past few years. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hove.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: When I was canvassing before the general election of May 1979, I found that many aspects of British life were causing deep concern. The new Conservative Government promised to restore the economy, protect our freedom and restore law and order. However, there was also an unspoken but strong feeling that measures should be taken by the new Government to improve the country's moral climate.
Because of public anxiety over the increase in pornographic literature, the number of blue films, and offensive material on television, the previous Government had set up a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Bernard Williams to look into matters relating to obscenity. After sitting for two and a half years, the committee published a report in November 1979. That important report has never been fully debated in the House. Although we may not all be fully in agreement with some of its findings, the majority of people welcome the report and agree that if its recommendations were accepted and efficiently applied that would lead to a dramatic decline in the nation's consumption of pornography.
Many people, particularly Professor Court, still correlate the increase in violence and sexual crimes with the dissemination of pornographic films and literature. I am inclined to agree with Professor Court, although that idea was refuted by the Williams report. However, most people would agree that the committee was correct in suggesting that the display of indecent material should be controlled and that there should be a law to ensure the imposition of heavy penalties on those who display pornographic and indecent pictures for sale to minors under the age of 18.
As I have said, as well as being elected to restore prosperity and protect freedom, the present Government were elected to restore the moral and intellectual climate of this country and ensure a wholesome and healthy environment. It was thought that a Conservative Government would take any action that was shown to be necessary to deal with pornographic material, particularly when that concerned the protection of children and young people. Many of us were disappointed that the Government did not introduce legislation immediately, but we all approve of the fact that they have given a warm


welcome to the Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has said that he will consider further legislation.
I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. Doing so was rather a balm to the soul, for Members of all political persuasions agreed that the Bill was admirable. The only controversy was over how we should facilitate its progress and make it practical in application. I believe that the Committee succeeded, and that, after the Bill becomes law, when people go to buy a newspaper or magazine, or our children go to buy their comics or sweets, they will not be shocked or disgusted—or even, in the case of children, emotionally harmed—by having porn thrust at them.
I do not believe that the restrictions in the Bill will cause an inflation in demand and make indecent publications more interesting and attractive. In fact, I believe that most ordinary citizens will hesitate before entering a restricted area if it should prove necessary to do so in order to buy soft or hard porn, and that fewer casual purchasers will buy such magazines. When these publications are freely available a small number of people discover by accident an unhealthy taste for soft porn, and they may even become addicted. Indeed, the younger and more impressionable mind may more easily become addicted and may progress, as with drugs, from soft porn to the even more decadent and harder variety, which, even if it does not influence him to commit sexual crimes, will certainly contribute to the cheapening and lowering of the status of women in his mind and affect his relationships with the opposite sex, and may even diminish his chances of a happy marriage.
We do not give up doing something worth while because it is difficult. People have suggested that we should not proceed with the Bill because it may be difficult to interpret. But I think that most newsagents will take note of the Bill and understand that by passing it the House has indicated how the country wishes them to operate in this area. The vast majority will accept these limited restrictions.
I expressed my own worries on Second Reading about the possible difficulty in interpreting words, but I believe that the courts will be able to interpret the spirit of the Bill, and I do not think that when these provisions become law they will be constantly flouted.
We all feel a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove for his having brought this matter forward. We would all like to congratulate him. Many hon. Members have already done so. We congratulate him on the admirable way in which he has steered the Bill through all its stages. I should like him to know that I have received many messages from many of my constituents asking me to support him.
The Bill is modest. It cannot offend those with excessively libertarian views, and I hope that this is a first step towards further improvements in the law. As well as restricting the sale of offensive literature, I hope that this will also help to stop the pollution and degeneration of many areas of our cities where sex leers at us from all sides, making walking through certain areas an uncomfortable and embarrassing experience. I trust that this will not be the end of the story. I understand that the Home Secretary has asked his officials to formulate plans to licence the setting up of sex shops, and I welcome that.
If Members of Parliament were able to watch more television, perhaps they would understand their constituents' concern at the excessive presentation of sex, violence and nudity which repels so many people. Earlier this week I was able to watch television, and I saw a programme which was about film-making in the 1930's, in which older actors and actresses spoke about how carefully bedroom and love-making scenes were monitored in those days so that they would not cause offence. How I wish that we could return to those days of innocent films, when we could have confidence in allowing our youngsters to go to a cinema.
The existing film censorship is patently inadequate. Therefore, I should like the House to have the opportunity of debating the whole of the Williams report, and particularly the proposals for categorising films. I believe that we should follow the suggestion that the grading should be made clear to the general public.
Other hon. Members have said that it is a pity that the Williams report is not to be debated in this Chamber. I hope that it is not to be another neglected report. If a document as valuable is neglected by the Government and it is left to a private Member to implement one of its most valuable recommendations, it becomes obvious that committees set up by the Government are not being properly utilised, and those who sacrifice their time to serve on such bodies may feel very disillusioned.
In a letter to The Times recently, Lord Vaizey said that reports should always have an opportunity to be debated, and he thought that the way of doing that was that they should have as an appendix a draft statute for legislation, and that once legislation had been drafted there would be very little difficulty in obtaining a debate in the House of Lords. That would certainly be preferable to the present situation, in which reports lie gathering dust.
I am sure that the House will agree to this Third Reading. The vast majority of people in this country are turning away from the permissive society, the permissive society which was very much all the rage in the 1960s and 1970s, and are in agreement with the provisions of this very mild and proper legislation. In passing this measure, Parliament will be swinging gently with the pendulum of opinion in Britain.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The House has just listened to a very sincere speech. I cannot say that I agree with every word of it, but the hon. Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) made two points with which I agree. The first was that the House ought to have an early opportunity of debating the Williams report—indeed, it ought to have had that opportunity before it had to deal with legislation of this kind. I say that without any offence to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). The second matter on which I agree with the hon. Lady is in her congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on having got this far with the Bill. I hope that he will get it all the way through Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman described his Bill as relatively modest. I think that in doing so he was being relatively modest. It is an important Bill. I have made no secret of my belief that it goes too far before we have dealt with the Williams committee report as a whole. I would have preferred the Bill to deal only with the street offence part of what concerns us in the Bill and left what happens inside


buildings until a later stage. However, I did not want to hold up matters on Report by dwelling upon that, because it might have involved very long debates.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hove will appreciate that, as I, in turn, appreciate the flexibility that he has shown over some matters, perhaps a little at the last moment, which has enabled a very important principle to be written into the Bill whereby we do not include provisions for imprisonment unless they are absolutely necessary. I hope that that will be a precedent for the Government, especially for the Home Office, whose representatives were listening while that was taking place, and that in future we will not automatically put sentences of imprisonment on summary conviction into Bills which do not need them.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I add my own congratulations to those offered already to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). This is a very important Bill, and I am sure that my hon. Friend was being modest when he described it otherwise. Today, with all-party support, we are seeing his measure on its way to the statute book.
There is no doubt that the Bill seeks to protect our country and its character not only from within but from without. People visiting the country are appalled by what we allow to happen in our cities and towns, especially all over London, with saunas, massage parlours, sex shops, theatres and cinemas and bookshops. There is no end to what families, especially families with young children, are subjected to.
Hon. Members will know of my child pornography campaign and will realise that children seeing displays of this kind can be corrupted, can seek older children to gain access to this material and, if they are corrupted, can gradually be procured for child pornography, which is quite disgusting. For that reason, I believe that the Bill is even more important than for the reasons to which my hon. Friend referred and that today we are on the threshold of cleaning the mind of the country a little.
However, I hope very much that with such legislation on the statute book, our Law Officers will not put the wrong interpretation on it. Either we bring Acts of Parliament into being and implement them, or we repeal them. I have been very disturbed over recent weeks to think that we have machinery of this sort and that it is not being used. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove that this is a splendid effort and that I am sure that the country will support him. However, one or two hon. Members in the Chamber at present may like to keep a watchful eye on the interpretation which Law Officers put on the legislation that we provide for their use. If we have a law such as this, we must see that it is used to its full advantage.
I shall not delay the House any further, because I want to see the Bill receive a Third Reading.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I wish the Bill well in its remaining proceedings in another place, and I express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Hove

(Mr. Sainsbury), who has pursued it so assiduously through its Committee stage, in which I was glad to be able to support him.
There are two issues concerning the House which are related but are different, and the Bill deals with only one problem. There is the offence caused by the display of obscene materials in our streets and newsagents' shops in places where they give offence and can be a source of corrupton to children. There is the other much wider problem of what the general law on obscenity and pornography should be to which this House will have to turn its attention again.
It is no criticism of the Bill that it does not attempt to tackle the major, complex and controversial problems of the law on pornography and obscenity. I say that particularly because the hon. Member for Hove has been subjected to some unfair criticism from people outside the House who do not realise how difficult it is to pilot through a Private Member's Bill. It is not sufficiently widely recognised that such a Bill will not succeed unless it commands very wide support and contains little that is the subject of disagreement. That must have guided the promoter when deciding the scope of his Bill. I disagree with some of the criticisms from outside the House about the limited nature of the Bill. A Private Member's Bill is not adequate to deal with the whole and general law on obscenity which will remain unchanged by the Bill. The Bill does not limit that law.
I also refute the criticisms that suggest that by requiring warning notices we shall weaken the existing obscenity law which will still apply in any part of any premises.
The Private Member's Bill procedure has been used rightly for the limited object of removing some very offensive material from the streets of our cities and some corrupting material from shop windows even in smaller towns. The wider questions require Government legislation. The Government must turn their attention to that. I welcome the reform in the Bill.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: About 11 years ago I was the first Back Bencher to introduce a Ten-Minute Bill which sought to do what this Bill does. I rise because I wish that I were my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and could claim the Bill as mine. I also wish to congratulate him on winning the top slot in the ballot for Private Member's Bills and on his skill and ability in piloting the Bill through its Second Reading, Committee, Report stage and Third Reading. We all appreciate his great knowledge of the subject and the sensitive way that he has treated a complex and difficult matter.
Some hon. Members have suggested that even now the time is not ripe for legislation on indecent displays. They suggest that there is a certain equivocation in the country about obscenity and the type of magazines that have polluted too many newsagents for too long.
I wonder where the doubts spring from. When I introduced my Bill 11 years ago I did so because of public pressure and because of my personal dislike of indecent displays. I have seen and read nothing since that has persuaded me that the public have changed their minds and now wish such displays to continue. Indeed, the public feel as strongly about them as ever.
They have wondered, when our nation is beset by the dregs of a permissive society, a lack of moral values,


sexual assaults and a 400 per cent. increase in rape in the last 20 years—when we have wrung our hands in despair and asked what is the cause—why nobody has felt that a law is required to remove that which might be described as the sexual arousal industry.
When the Bill becomes an Act and when shop windows which euphemistically state that "sexual aids" are provided, are no longer allowed, when the rows of magazines have disappeared into other parts of the shops, when the life-size posters are no longer outside cinemas and when we cease to allow the propaganda of sex as a physical activity pure and simple, and often muddled with sado-masochism, we shall have taken a step towards a new morality. We shall have taken a step towards a new chance to establish the values that all who believe in a decent society want.
When the displays have disappeared, who will regret their passing? When our newsagents and sweet shops no longer have rows of lewd material to shock the eye of the shopper, young or old, to make the mother wonder what her child might or might not have seen and taken away, who will mourn their passing?
If some newsagents are uncertain as to which magazines they will now be able to display without danger of prosecution, I suggest that when in doubt they should leave the whole lot out. Those who come to their shops will not criticise them for so doing.
The Minister spoke of the Bill in terms of an environmental clean-up. He was right, of course. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove was also right to go for that approach. But when the Minister suggested that the Bill did not seek to strike a moral tone, I believe that he was wrong. As he well knows, the very subject of indecency and decency is a moral subject. I therefore say this to him. The Bill is indeed an environmental clean-up because the streets of our towns and cities will no longer be an affront to public decency. My hon. Friend was right to go for indecent displays and not for obscenity because indecency is a matter of contemporary moral values, which are changing values. The courts must therefore view the matter in terms of the changing contemporary values of our society. In so far as the Bill is an environmental cleanup, I welcome it. In so far as it strikes a moral tone, I welcome that even more.
Finally, I join the chorus of hon. Members who have asked the Government to take a more positive view on the Williams report. The task of that inquiry was to review the laws on obscenity and indecency. The then Home Secretary gave as one of his reasons for setting it up the view the subject should not be treated in a piecemeal way because something more global was needed.
The Williams report has concluded that the law is in a mess. If that is so, how can the Government sit back and let this parliamentary Session pass by without doing something about it? That doubt should not exist in my mind because the Home Secretary has indeed said that the Government will do something. I was a little surprised at the source of that statement. Nevertheless, I have brought it with me. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was assailed by a letter from Mr. Henry Root, who is known to some of us as a writer of rather dubious reputation. My right hon. Friend said in his reply:
I can confirm that our Conservative Party will take action against pornography.

I welcome that statement. I welcome even more the progress of the Bill and the admirable work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Before congratulating the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on reaching this height of attainment, I must say that I regret that there has been some reference to party political philosophies. When I contributed to the proceedings on the Bill, I had no thought of any party political mantle, and I am sorry that some have sought, however lightly to introduce it in. I do not accept that morality lies in greater measure on one side of the House or the other.
I also congratulate the House on this achievement. It would be wrong to allow this moment to pass without acknowledging the help of those members of the Committee with a background in the legal profession. I am sure that all members of the Committee would wish to register appreciation of the help and guidance that they gave to us in difficult discussions and debates. The House has achieved a milestone with this Bill—the first of many steps that I hope will be taken. I make no further comment on the Williams report, as that has already been done by others.
The Bill goes just so far. We need to go further and we should delve into the realms of the media, including television and the method of mass communication that broadcasting represents. Often what is shown on the television screen is indecent and it is displayed. If the Government do not do anything about it, I hope that a Private Member's Bill will be brought forward.
Much remains to be done if we are to return to those values that most of us appreciate and would like to see maintained and enhanced. Much work has been done, but more is required. Let us hope that those who undertake such work are as successful as the hon. Member for Hove. We should also acknowledge the wise contributions made by the hon. Gentleman's predecessors who laid the foundations. Time and again we have resorted to their advice and to the proposals included in their measures. The House will acknowledge that. I hope that the measure will make progress.

Mr. Peter Mills: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on the progress that he has made, and on introducing the Bill. I am one of those who have remained quietly behind the scenes, doing nothing unless called upon. That may have contributed to the Bill's success in some small way. If I had spoken, the Bill's progress might have been delayed.
The only measure that I have been responsible for placing on the statute book was enacted years ago. It took a Friday to do everything. The measure was called the Dangerous Litter Act. My hon. Friend's Bill is more difficult and complicated, yet he would seem to have achieved his objective. The Bill represents a step forward. There is a great desire in the country to roll back the permissive society. The Bill is a start. I hope that much more will be done.
I warn the Minister and the Government that some of us are watching their actions carefully. We hope that something will be done about the Williams report. Some of my colleagues and I will prod the Government into doing something. There is a biblical truth concerning doers


of the word as well as hearers of it. I hope that the Government are hearers, and that they will become doers on such important matters.

Dr. Summerskill: I join all those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on the way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House with such patience and tolerance. As he knows, I have not been uncritical of the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends tabled many amendments. Fortunately, at a late hour, he has accepted the amendment on imprisonment. We welcome that as a great achievement. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman also accepted other amendments.
I share the view expressed by several hon. Members, from both sides of the House, that after 16 months it is regrettable that the Williams report has still not been debated in the House. Nevertheless, we have had to deal with an extremely complex piece of legislation which deals with the subject for which the committee was set up. I hope that the Government will not allow another ballot for Private Members' Bills to take place—as a result of which another hon. Member could introduce further legislation on obscenity, indecency, offensiveness or anything related to that subject—before we have had a debate on the Williams report and have heard the Government's views on the committee's unanimous recommendations. I hope that the report will not be put on the Home Office's shelf to gather dust. I also hope that the Home Office will not think that it has done its bit.
I hope that the Bill will improve the unacceptable face of Soho and areas similar to it, which are growing up in our large cities and towns. I hope that it will succeed in its aim of reducing displays which many people find offensive. Unfortunately, at our last sitting of the Committee, the Minister said that the Bill will not make many substantial changes to the substance of existing law. I agree with him. It is unfortunate, but it is true. It will not make many substantial changes to the present totally ineffective existing law. That is why the Bill has been brought forward. There are indecent displays, and the existing law can do nothing to counteract them.
The Bill has taken away old-fashioned words, we are told, such as "rogues" and "vagabonds". It may have done that, but it has retained the word "indecent", which the Williams report recommended should be removed. That word remains, and it is still undefined in the new legislation.
I hope that the new legislation will act as a deterrent to indecent displays, unlike the present legislation, which is no deterrent at all. I hope that there will be more prosecutions, because few have been intitiated under the present law. We expect much from the Bill, because the present legislation is totally ineffective. I do not know what guidance will be given to chief constables, shopkeepers, newsagents or publishers about what is indecent and what is not indecent, because there is no definition. We must all decide what is indecent.
The effects of the Bill therefore remain to be seen. They are totally unknown. In a year's time we shall know whether it has deterred, whether there are prosecutions, whether it will affect the character of local shops, the shops in high streets, and the corner shops. We shall know whether their character has improved or whether the

warning notice and the curtain dividing the acceptable from the unacceptable have adversely affected their character. We do not know what effects the legislation will have on local shops. However, I hope that the Bill will be effective and enforceable, and that it will succeed in its aims and objects.

Dr. Mawhinney: At the risk of being repetitious, I, too, wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). I do so with some feeling, as he will understand, because I was particularly pleased when he approached me, after he came first out of the hat, to discuss the possibility of introducing a Bill, the substance of which is similar to the one that I introduced last year. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way he introduced the Bill and carried it safely through this far.
I also congratulate the House, because it needs a degree of good will across the Floor of the Chamber to achieve success on a matter of this nature. This time there has been a determination to succeed, reflecting the wishes of our constituents who wanted the House to move decisively in this direction.
This is a limited and a modest Bill. It demonstrates the art of the possible. The House is composed of people who represent all the viewpoints that are found in our society. I endorse what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Hove. It is easy for people outside the House with a particular interest and, in some cases, a particular vested interest, to push a certain line and insist on a Bill which reflects that viewpoint. Those of us who enact legislation know that to try to proceed on that basis would doom the Bill to failure.
I support the moderate and sensible approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove. He has demonstrated that it is possible to find wide agreement. He has not achieved what any of us would have wished to achieve had we been dictators, but he has nevertheless achieved a measure which will find broad acceptance.
The Bill is about the right of people to choose not only what they wish to see but what they wish not to see. The pendulum has swung too far in our society. Society is saying that it wishes to go back to a more neutral position. The Bill reaffirms the right of people not to look while protecting the rights of those who wish to look.
I welcome the warm support that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has given to the Bill. It is no secret that the Government rushed out the Williams committee report one week before Second Reading of my Bill last year. The welcome given to my Bill by the Government was somewhat less wholehearted than that given to this Bill. I welcome that change of emphasis. As the House recognises, we are doing what the country has been demanding for a long time. It is always difficult to get a body of opinion into motion. But today we are moving the body forward. We want my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to know that, now that the body is in motion, we expect the Government to continue to increase the momentum and that many of us will help to give it a push in the right direction.

Mr. Christopher Price: I thank the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) for the concessions that he has made on imprisonment. The House now realises that they are an


improvement to the Bill. It may be that the other place will seek to improve financial penalties. I do not know. However, I believe that we are sending forward a better Bill.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hove on his success so far. I am sure that, in retrospect, he realises how wise he was to choose a limited Bill of this kind rather than impale himself upon the prong of the Abortion Bill as many hon. Members were urging him to do for so long. His experience will be a lead and a warning to whoever next wins first place in the Ballot that it is better to adopt a Bill which has a wide measure of public support and the possibility of getting through the House within 12 months than a vastly controversial Bill which leads to endless Committee sittings and, in the end, gets talked out on Report. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his wisdom and hope that his successors will be as wise as he has been in eschewing issues which the Government ought to take on if they are to be taken on at all.
Although the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said that he hoped the Bill would roll back the permissive society, that might be——

Mr. Peter Mills: A start.

Mr. Price: —a tiny bit optimistic.
This is something of a cosmetic Bill. It will create a cleaner environment for the public. From that point of view, it is a good thing. It is not in our interests to exaggerate its effects or to try to make out that it will change society. Things will go on, but behind rather more curtains and closed doors than previously. The covers of magazines, which hold the same material between pages 2 and 76, will simply have different pictures.
I hope that the Minister of State will take to heart the fact that the debate has emphasised that the House cannot continue to ignore the Williams report for ever. One day the Government will have to be brave enough to have a debate in which the Home Office says something about its attitude. Until then, the deeply-unsatisfactory state of the law on indecency that has been responsible for many of our problems hitherto will continue. The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) for the way that she has dealt with the Bill and highlighted the problems.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), I played a waiting role—but
They also serve who only stand and wait.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on his achievement. As a long-time friend of his predecessor in Hove, Martin Madden, I know how much he and the electors of Hove will be delighted by what has been achieved.
As many of us know, and as I have seen twice in recent weeks, Soho still has aggressive pornographic displays close to schools for very young children, and the Bill will help to tighten up the law. In Pimlico, where I have lived for 20 years, a sex shop has recently opened near the local swimming pool. It has an appallingly aggressive display outside, offering explicit sex. Children who go to the pool have to mix with the clientele that it attracts, and the Bill will help to clear up such problems.
I hope, too, that the Bill will bring about a higher standard of staff in the shops where such material is

handled. I went to the shop in Pimlico to ask what it was about. I asked politely and reasonably, but was set upon by a young thug aged 19, of very little brain, who tried to throw me out without explanation. I asked to see the manager and, fortunately, was young enough to stand ray ground until he came, when I was able to object to what was taking place. People with low intelligence are frequently in control of such shops, and they cannot handle members of the public. I hope that that symptom will disappear under the Bill.

Mr. Mayhew: This is a unique occasion, because the lawyers have been thanked. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) who is responsible for it, has been overcome by what he has done and has left the Chamber, but I am grateful to him.
The predecessors of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) were entitled to the thanks that they received, but, above all, my hon. Friend is entitled to thanks for his judgment, determination and skill in piloting the measure through. It is an example of the good sense that the House can show when we are united by sufficiently wide agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) spoke of the art of the possible, which exactly describes what my hon. Friend has demonstrated with such effect.
The work of the House and the Committee in dealing with the Bill has been arduous but not unduly long. which shows what can be done by the step-by-step approach. Many valuable measures can be lost if they are embedded in a major, comprehensive measure. The dissension generated by other parts of a Bill can be so great as to pull down even the provisions upon which most of us agree.
The Bill will have a useful effect, even though it does not make major and substantive changes to the law. Prosecuting authorities will draw strength and encouragement from the manifestation in this House of so wide a body of opinion wanting this modest measure to succeed. This measure is couched in modern, clear language very differnet from the law as it stands at present. We shall watch to see how it develops. I take note of the remarks of those hon. Members who say that the Bill gives an impetus to the Government to move further along the lines that many people want to see achieved.
It is difficult to place on the statute book provisions that adequately and clearly give effect to broad general feelings. The Government will note the degree of support received by the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove on his rare good fortune and on his judgment in securing a place on the statute book for a measure that is popular, good, desirable and right.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (NOTIFICATION) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

DISUSED BURIAL GROUNDS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill

Considered in Commmittee.

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1

NEEDS OF THE DISABLED ON HIGHWAYS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful for the opportunity, even at this late stage, to put on record the opportunity that has been afforded me to bring forward a Bill to benefit disabled people in this International Year of Disabled People.
I am appreciative of the help received from numerous people over the last few weeks in getting the Bill this far, not least the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) of the all-party disablement group, the former Minister with responsibility for the disabled, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), the sponsors of my Bill, outside groups such as RADAR and the Wales Council for the Disabled, and Mr. Peter Large, with the Silver Jubilee Committee, who has done much campaigning over the years.
The Bill is limited. Clause 1 deals with matters relating to improving the place on the highway, especially the pavements, for disabled people, shielding them from such things as impediments on the pavements. Obviously, at this late stage, it is not possible to go into the details of the Bill——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be dealing with the needs of the disabled on highways and not indulging in a general debate.

Mr. Wigley: I say no more, Mr. Weatherill.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): The Government welcome the Bill in its present form. I am glad that it has been possible for the Government to give the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) assistance in putting the Bill into a correct form. I hope that the measure will prove to be of real value to disabled people in this International Year of Disabled People, although we appreciate that we have not gone as far as we would have liked.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

DOMESTIC RATING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 June.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 June.

SMALL FIRMS EXPANSION (INQUIRY) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[6 March]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

BILL OF RIGHTS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

MOTOR CYCLE CRASH HELMETS (SECULAR PRINCIPLES OBJECTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

VAGRANCY OFFENCES (REPEAL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 May.

ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

PRAYER BOOK PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 May.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

INNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY (EXPENDITURE CONTROL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

LICENSING (ALCOHOL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH) BILL

Standing Committee C discharged from considering the Licensing (Alcohol Education and Research) Bill, and Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir Bernard Brain.]

Committee upon Friday next.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That in respect of the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Mather.]

Orders of the Day — National Youth Orchestra

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. David Mellor: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the question of the future funding of the National Youth Orchestra, and I am glad that I am able to strike a happier note than looked possible only 48 hours ago.
The House will be aware that at the last moment welcome assistance to the orchestra has been received from Capital Radio. All of us who live and work in London already have a high regard for Capital Radio and it has established an excellent reputation for sponsorship of the arts, but it has taken an exceptional step in offering the orchestra £100,000 over four years, with inflation-proofing and an additional offer of broadcasting fees to relay the concerts given by that great orchestra.
I should also mention Lloyds Bank which has been most generous for several years through sponsorship and other assistance to the NYO. It is a fine tribute to both institutions that they will be giving more than £60,000 to the orchestra this year.
It would be wrong to allow the debate to subside in a haze of optimism because there remain problems that the orchestra has to grapple with. The orchestra is run on a shoestring and no one can say that it spends more money than it should on administration. Its budget for the year 1982–83 still reveals the prospect of a deficit of £46,000 at the end of the financial year. That will mean that, even with the generosity of Capital Radio, there will be a significant deficit at the end of that year, which is only two financial years away.
There is an issue of principle at stake about the manner in which the Arts Council removed the grant from the orchestra and the question whether the orchestra should, in due time, receive a further grant from the Arts Council, given the arguments advanced by the Arts Council that were used to remove public subsidy are unjustifiable and untenable.
I should say a little about the work of the National Youth Orchestra. For many years it has proved to be an excellent training ground for young musicians—many of whom go on to distinguished careers in our orchestras, either as soloists or conductors. Every year 800 young musicians are auditioned to form an orchestra of about 180 young people. They meet for a week of intensive training over the New Year holiday each year and give a concert. They meet again at Easter for further intensive training for seven to 10 days and give a widely popular concert at the Royal Festival Hall. That is followed by a concert in Croydon or, now, in Leeds—some hon. Members will welcome the departure this year, given our concern that the arts should spread throughout the country.
The orchestra meets again in the summer to give another widely popular concert at the Proms. It was at the Proms, at a performance of Sibelius's First Symphony, that I was first introduced to the excellence of the orchestra—an experience that I have not forgotten. I am glad that by raising its plight I can in some small way today repay the debt that I feel I owe for the pleasure that the orchestra has given to countless concertgoers. It is a tribute to the excellence of the orchestra that it has been invited

back this year and next to give a concert at the Edinburgh Festival, which must be one of the most prestigious international festivals in the world.
It is the wish of the orchestra to tour more, as it is rated as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of the inter national youth orchestras. However, touring has become increasingly difficult because it is difficult to obtain funds.
Because the quality of the orchestra is very much at the root of our argument I shall quote from three reviews of the orchestra's recent concerts—two at the Royal Festival Hall and the third relating to the same concert when it was given in Leeds. David Cairns, the highly experienced critic of The Sunday Times said about the closing down of the NYO:
After Friday's splendid concert at the Royal Festival Hall under Christopher Seaman, the thought is more absurd than ever. To hear the cellos sing the great arching melody which opens Bruckner's Seventh Symphony or the noble, passionate lament of the development section, to experience the attack, the dedication, the sheer musicality of these ordinary but astonishing 16-year-olds and their skill and stamina in mastering so huge and taxing a score, was to marvel afresh that we can produce such an orchestra and then be prepared to throw it away.
In The Times, the critic Barry Millington said:
The NYO' s playing, as is well known, is of an extremely high standard: not only are there astonishingly few fluffed notes (a reflection surely, of the participants' commitment as well as of thorough preparation) but also taxing, large scale works are tackled with a maturity that it is easy to take for granted.
Writing in The Guardian about the concert in Leeds, Gerald Larner said:
Before the concert anyone could have been forgiven for thinking that Bruckner's Seventh Symphony was an unwise choice. It demands much stamina, both physical and intellectual, as well as the ability to sustain a line, to control the dynamic level over a wide range, to survive some of the most awkward unisons in the repertoire, to preserve clarity in an often complex texture, to remain firm in frighteningly exposed circumstances.
Under the direction of Christopher Seaman, the NYO did all these things with quite remarkable conviction. Occasionally the violins were unable to hold their own in the overall balance—a not uncommon fault in British orchestras—and ensemble was not always ideally secure.
But this was a real performance, not an educational exercise, structurally impressive with towering climaxes and authentically expressive in the melodic phrasing, in spite of the orchestra's inexperience in the central European tradition. Above all, the performance had a freshness that is as rare as it is essential to a true Bruckner characterisation.
Those distinguished critics have paid the orchestra the tribute, which all of us who have heard it believe it well deserves, of treating it as if it were a professional orchestra, with which the National Youth Orchestra at its best can well bear comparison without being afraid.
That leads me to introduce into the debate the true villain of the peace—the Arts Council of Great Britain. Let me make it clear where I stand in regard to the Arts Council. There are, sad to say, some on the Conservative Benches who do not approve of the principles of public subsidy of the arts, and who are therefore always ready to criticise the Arts Council. I am not one of them. I passionately believe in public sponsorship of the arts, but I become angry, as do many of my like-minded colleagues, when we see public support of the arts being abused in the way in which the Arts Council has sometimes chosen to abuse its discretion.
It is almost as if the council wants criticism, as if it wants to put its jaw in the way of a swinging right hand from its enemies—whether it be subsidising an exhibition


of horse manure, purporting to be art, subsidising someone walking down a provincial street with a pole on his head or, as in this case, seeking to destroy a great national institution. It is almost as if the council has a death wish, as if it does not want to be loved or indeed respected. I suspect that it is neither in many circles today.
It is important to trace what the council has done to the orchestra. It began its funding of the orchestra in 1968. with a grant of £20,000, 71 per cent. of the orchestra's then needs. It did not increase that grant for 11 consecutive years, but I suppose that with hindsight we should at least be grateful for the fact that it continued the grant.
By 1980–81 only 20 per cent. of the orchestra's funds were obtained from public money. That reflects great credit on those in the orchestra who can obtain private support and who also obtain a large proportion of the income from those prepared to pay at the box office to hear the orchestra play.
In 1980–81 the Arts Council announced an increase in funding—admittedly a modest one—to £21,000. It called a meeting with the orchestra, made what appeared to be constructive criticism of its management and suggested remedies that were carried into effect. The orchestra took this to be a vote of confidence in what it was doing, the implication being that if it continued along the lines which it was going along as guided it could look forward to the future with confidence.
Now we come to the most unpleasant part of this rather unpleasant little tale. On 16 December last year there was a meeting of representatives of the orchestra and the council. Everything in the garden appeared to be rosy. Nothing was said about the orchestra's being in jeopardy of losing its grant. But the next day a confidential letter was written to the orchestra saying that its grant was being withdrawn. The letter was made public on 19 December, leaving the orchestra with the prospect of having to find a substantial sum of money by 1 April in order to survive.
That would be rather unpleasant were it the act of a private sponsor withdrawing his own money from an organisation that he no longer wished to support. Indeed, I cannot think that many private sponsors would be so careless of their reputation as to behave in this way. But when what these people are doing is withdrawing public funds, not their own money, this becomes peremptory arrogance to a quite unacceptable degree and stands to be criticised by all of us who love the arts.
I make no apologies for saying that, even if the decision had merits, the manner in which it was carried out was unacceptable. My right hon. Friend the Minister, who has very little sanction over the Arts Council, might think that it was time that a few Admiral Byngs were shot on their quarterdecks of the Arts Council headquarters in Piccadilly in order that he can be sure that these people, who are public servants, carry out their duties with rather more humility and sensitivity to the great task that they have.
Let us look at the justification for what the Arts Council chose to do. It said that the National Youth Orchestra could well get commercial sponsorship to cover all of its activities. The Times put the counter argument very well, as is so often the case, by saying that the Arts Council had, in effect, put a pistol to its head and threatened to shoot unless industry paid up. That is not an acceptable way for a public body such as this to behave.
That argument also seems to have underlying it the suggestion that somehow it is the duty of the Arts Council only to support projects which cannot get any support from

private funds, as if it will end up on some glorious day in the year 2000 subsidising only some of those theatrical groups about which we hear so much, which, by reason of their dedication to political motivations rather than artistic quality, have drawn the Arts Council into so much controversy.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree that it is for the Arts Council to support all that which is excellent in the arts regardless of whether there may be opportunities to obtain private funding as well, and that what we are seeking is a partnership between the private and the public, not throwing a worthy institution to the wolves in the hope that someone from the private sector will arrive to prevent it being gobbled up.
Then we have another argument that is almost not worthy of the breath that it takes to utter. Apparently the Arts Council says that the removal of this grant is an opportunity to give grants to other companies—as if £20,000 was really a lot of money. Of the money that the Arts council had available to dispose of, £20,000 is one-forthieth of 1 per cent.
I wonder why the Arts Council has chosen to behave in this way. After all, it has not done too badly for funds. Here I am making a bipartisan point, from which both parties can draw great credit. In the 10 years up to March 1980, when the Arts Council grant stood at £63·6 million, the Arts Council had an increase of 300 per cent. Thanks to the sterling work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), assisted by the present Minister, that funding has been kept up in line with inflation. Indeed, The Times said that the settlement must be regarded as handsome in the present circumstances. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who takes a great interest in these matters, is agreeing with that.
It has been suggested to me by someone who was briefing me for this occasion that perhaps the Arts Council wanted to remove the grants from some of these bodies in order to embarrass the Government. Certainly one or two senior people of the Arts Council have made suggestions as if to say that they are dissatisfied with the generosity of this grant. I say to them "Beware whom you criticise. Go across the Atlantic to America to see another Government in action dedicated to cutting public expenditure, and see that they propose to cut arts support by 50 per cent., and realise how lucky you are that men of the sensitivity of my right hon. Friend the Minister are in charge of the Government's duties towards the arts.".
Thirdly, I come to the last reason why the Arts Council says that it removed the grant. It said that the National Youth Orchestra—and this, to my mind, is the cruellest cut of all—was an educational body. I want to ask a question publicly of Sir Roy Shaw. How many Members of the Arts Council attended a concert of the National Youth Orchestra in the 12 months before they made their decision to withdraw the grant? I do not believe that anyone who went to any of those concerts could say that this was merely an educational body, as if one went along out of a sense of duty to hear 16-year-old kids scraping around miserably on their instruments, instead of hearing an orchestra worthy to play at the Edinburgh Festival. That is a trace of philistinism of a kind that I find unacceptable in a body charged with such duties.
I come finally to where I seek the help of my right hon. Friend. Again with a piece of arrogance that I find unacceptable, Sir Roy Shaw says in one breath to the


National Youth Orchestra "Please submit an application for grant for the year 1982–83", and in the next breath he says "But we shall not change our minds." I cannot think that a Minister of the Crown could get away with that sort of conduct at the Dispatch Box. But this is the tragedy of the Arts Council. It is able to choose to ignore the standards by which the rest of us in a democracy have to be guided.
Whilst appreciating the difficulties in which my right hon. Friend finds himself, I tell him that he must take the Arts Council to task about this. I know that he has embarked upon that already by having an exchange of letters on the subject. He must not be afraid, if he has to, to change the composition of the Arts Council, because there are many of us every bit as dedicated to the promotion of the arts as anyone who has ever sat on the Arts Council and who feel that, given the provocation we have received, my right hon. Friend would be justified in doing so.

Mr. John Wheeler: I intervene briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). I congratulate him on his interest in and work for the National Youth Orchestra and on the way that he has presented its case to the House today. His love of and genuine knowledge of music are a great credit to him, and he has served the House well by raising the subject in this debate.
I want also to thank the sponsors of the National Youth Orchestra for their continued and improved support, notably Lloyds Bank, which has improved its support, and not least Capital Radio, which surely must rank amongst the most enterprising of our private radio stations. They have done us well in their generosity towards the orchestra.
I share my hon. Friend's concern about the Arts Council. In a letter to me dated 11 March 1981, the chairman wrote:
Precedence must be given to the continued support of professional activities over that of bodies whose work, however worthy, involves young people who will not necessarily enter an artistic profession.
That is an incredible statement for the chairman to make in view of the record of the Arts Council and some of the awards that it makes. One cannot perceive much professional artistic merit in a heap of dung or a pile of bricks. So much for the chairman's comments on this application.
The real point is that a great orchestra, whether it is organised on the lines of the National Youth Orchestra or any other orchestra, has to be sure of its long-term financial support. It cannot undertake tours overseas or visits within the United Kingdom unless it is guaranteed future support. It is in this regard that I hope that the Arts Council will reconsider its decision.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) on raising this issue, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) on his intervention. There are many other hon. Members present who are equally interested in this topic. I see, for example,

the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), my hon. Friend the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), and others. Their attendance shows a great deal of interest and sympathy for the National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain.
I share the admiration of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for the achievements of the many talented young people who have brought the orchestra to such a peak of perfection. Over the years, it has had two eminent directors, distinguished conductors and many administrators. It is a unique body with a unique reputation. I had the pleasure of hearing one of its concerts for the first time more than 10 years ago, and I am delighted that this debate is taking place in a more cheerful atmosphere than seemed likely a few days ago.
The question raised by my hon. Friend is how the future of the orchestra is to be secured. The only problem as far as I know is that of finance. My hon. Friend referred to the part that the Arts Council has played in past years in subsidising the orchestra and to the fact that without this continuing subsidy the orchestra is threatened. As my hon. Friend said, the total cost of the orchestra last year was about £100,000, of which £40,000 came from students' fees and the income from concerts, £30,000 by way of a tremendous gift from a major sponsor, Lloyds Bank, and more than £10,000 from other contributions, donations and miscellaneous earnings.
The sum of £20,000 represented the Arts Council's grant. But I understand that this year the estimated shortfall is £40,000 or more, and that the orchestra is looking for £50,000 additional income to maintain its basic programme of courses and concerts and to be able to make limited plans for the future.
I must remind the House of the "arms-length principle" that governs relations between the Arts Council and Arts Ministers. The grant-in-aid that this House votes annually to the Arts Council is distributed by the council to over a thousand artistic bodies or clients, of whom the National Youth Orchestra has been one. I do not participate in this allocation. The Arts Council has expert and independent advisers and officers to guide it in this complex task. By well-established practice Ministers do not intervene and do not substitute their own judgment in individual cases for that of the council. That applies equally to the grant to the National Youth Orchestra as to all the other hundreds of clients. None of my predecessors has sought to change that policy. I do not think that it would be wise to change it. There has been an immense increase in artistic activities in different parts of the country and I pay my tribute to the Arts Council for the crucial role that it has played over the years. Many people abroad envy our system of funding the arts.
In spite of criticism that might rightly be made sometimes about the council's marginal activities, on the whole the country gets good value for money. Those who have expressed dismay at the Arts Council's decision, both in this House and outside, should know the background against which it has been made and the reasons that lie behind it.
I have naturally been concerned about the Arts Council's decision to withdraw its grant this year. I am not able to overturn this. I want the Government's position to be properly understood. Government support for the Arts


Council has continued to grow in real terms over the past few years, whatever impression to the contrary may be given in some quarters. So it is unfortunate that the Arts Council's decision to discontinue its grant to the National Youth Orchestra, and to another 40 clients, has been attributed by some to what has been described as the inadequacy of the grant received from the Government.
The figures show that at 1980–81 prices there has been a percentage increase, admittedly of a modest nature, in real terms in each of the last five years and, I suspect, much further back than that. I understand that the Arts Council believes that its grant this year and for a few years past has not been as large as it would ideally have liked, or even as large as the arts need. It never is, it never has been and it never will be.
The present situation has arisen from the inevitability of having to reduce or drop some grants if others are to be given additional help or new clients are to be taken on. Given the extremely difficult economic circumstances the Arts Council has not been treated at all badly. It is misleading to pretend otherwise.
Some clients who have received in past years less than the Arts Council's average overall rate of increase have convinced the council that they need to be given substantially increased support this year if they are to survive. I cite the examples of some regional orchestras, full-time professional orchestras—the very orchestras, indeed, to which members of the National Youth Orchestra who wish to pursue a professional playing career will be looking for employment and experience. In these circumstances, notwithstanding that the Government's grant has been more than fair given the current economic climate, the council has given—and I quote from its information bulletin—
significantly increased levels of subsidy for 1981–82
to 46 clients at the expense of withdrawing grant from 41 others.
My hon. Friend referred to the manner of removing the grant. I have had correspondence with the chairman of the council about that. I have had it published in Hansard. Assurances have been given that in future more notice will be given to those whose grants are threatened. That is the general will in all quarters of the House. The reasons for withdrawing the grants are various. The council has mentioned artistic quality, balance between London and the regions, the level of local authority support, box office performance and financial viability. That varies from case to case. In the case of the National Youth Orchestra the Arts Council says that the prime consideration was the precedence that it felt bound to give to full-time professional performers over part-time amateurs.
A secondary factor was the possibility that the partial shortfall resulting from withdrawal of grant could be made up by additional sponsorship. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about that. I agree that it is wrong that the criterion for deciding whether to give public support for the arts should depend on whether one thinks that private support is forthcoming. The Arts Council had always

made it clear that support of amateur activities was very exceptional indeed and stemmed from a time when the council had far fewer clients than it has now.
I emphasise that these decisions were taken by the Arts Council and not by the Government. The council determines its own priorities and I do not interfere. Indeed, as I think the council knows, I firmly defend its independence in these matters. I therefore certainly hoped that further support from private sources would materialise. I am delighted to learn, therfore, as was announced at yesterday's press conference, that Lloyds Bank has increased its sponsorship this year to £35,000, and that Capital Radio has also stepped in with £20,000 a year for the next four years—index-linked. With other expenses that Capital Radio will meet, and fees that it will pay for concerts, its contribution could amount to some £35,000 a year. This is most welcome news, and frees the orchestra from immediate worries. I emphasise that I hope that the public will also respond to the appeal that has been launched to build up a capital fund to secure the orchestra's long-term future—that is the crucial point—enabling it to tour abroad and develop in other ways.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has said. I believe that the funding of the arts in this country must involve a partnership between the State, local authorities and business sponsorship. The nature of that partnership will, of course, vary in different circumstances. But I am glad that, in spite of the present economic difficulties, there is more and more evidence in this country of enlightened business sponsorship which is of mutual benefit both to the arts organisation and to business. I shall do everything in my power to increase that. I certainly wish to congratulate these particular sponsors on embarking upon a very interesting and courageous idea. I congratulate the orchestra, not only on the work that it has done in the past, but on managing to obtain that sponsorship.
I hope that the orchestra and its sponsors will together have an extremely successful and mutually beneficial relationship. If they do, I believe that it will be of great benefit to the musical life of this country. I think that everyone agrees that over the years the National Youth Orchestra has been an immense asset to our cultural life and to our cultural future. I certainly believe that we must cherish it. I hope that it will go on from strength to strength. Its short-term future is safeguarded. I hope that as a result of its appeal, its long-term future will also be safeguarded and that the public will respond.
Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend once again on raising this very important topic, which has highlighted a great many other interesting issues. I hope that his speeches will always be crowned with the success that he has had this afternoon, and that, whenever anything runs into trouble, he will give notice of his intention to raise an Adjournment debate and all problems will vanish as at the waving of a wand.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock till Tuesday 5 May, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 6 April.